Electronic Markets

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 37–48 | Cite as

Leader delegation in global software teams: occurrence and effects

  • Suling Zhang
  • Marilyn Tremaine
  • Allen E. Milewski
  • Jerry Fjermestad
  • Patrick O’Sullivan
Special Theme

Abstract

Global teams are an important work structure in software development projects. Managing such complex global software projects presents many challenges to traditional leadership wisdom, in particular, how, why and when the leaders should delegate responsibility and authority. Delegation is considered an important leadership component to motivate and grow subordinates. Cultural differences, skill level disparity and potential competition between different software development sites creates a management context which is much different from where traditional leadership theories were developed. This study investigates leader delegation behaviors in global software teams and explores the reasons and impact of delegation strategies on global team performance. Semi-structured interviews and a survey was used to collect data from global software team managers and members from four countries of a Fortune 100 IT service company. The results of this study include in-depth analysis of hows and whys of leader delegation in global teams and a theoretical model for analyzing global team leader delegation occurrence and effects.

Keywords

Global software team management Leader delegation Leadership vs. management 

JEL

M15 

References

  1. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free.Google Scholar
  2. Brez, M., & Arad, R. (1986). Participative goal setting; social, motivational, and cognitive actions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 591–597.Google Scholar
  3. Conte, V. A., & Novello, D. (2008). Assessing leadership in a Chinese company: A case study. The Journal of Management Development, 27(10), 1002–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, R. C. (1942). The fundamentals of top management. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  5. Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2001). Mastering virtual teams (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Guimaraes, T., & Igbaria, M. (1992). Determinants of turnover intentions: Comparingic and IS personnel. Information Systems Research, 3(3), 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through design of work. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 16(5), 250–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heller, F. (2003). Participation and power: A critical assessment. Applied Psychology, 52(1), 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herzberg, F. (1968). Work and the nature of man. London: Granada Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Huang, H., & Ocker, R. (2006). Preliminary insights into the in-group/out-group effect in partially distributed teams: An analysis of participant reflections, Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research, Claremont, CA, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  14. Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: The role of autonomy, interdependence, team development, contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877–905.Google Scholar
  15. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. (2004). The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-to-face interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein, K., Ziegert, J., Knight, A., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621.Google Scholar
  17. Kleinbaum, D. G., Kupper, L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  18. Leana, C. (1986). Predictors and consequences of delegation. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 754–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leana, C. (1987). Power relinquishment versus power sharing: A theoretical classification and empirical comparison of delegation and participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(2), 228–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacKenzie, R. A. (1969). The management process in 3-D. Harvard Business Review, 47(6), 80–87.Google Scholar
  21. MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinsons, M. G., & Davison, R. M. (2007). Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American. Japanese and Chinese Management, Decision Support Systems, 43, 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meadows, C. J. (1996). Globework: Creating technology with international teams Ph.D. thesis. Boston: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  24. Milewski, A., & Lewis, S. H. (1997). Delegating to software agents. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 46(4), 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. (1995). Designing team-based organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 141–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paré, G., & Dubé, L. (1999). Virtual teams: An exploratory study of key challenges and strategies, Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems, Charlotte, NC, U.S.A.Google Scholar
  28. Piccoli, G., & Ives, B. (2003). Trust and the unintended effects of behavior control in virtual teams. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 365–395.Google Scholar
  29. Schriesheim, C., Neider, L., & Scandura, T. (1998). Delegation and leader-member exchange: Main effects and Moderators. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 298-318.Google Scholar
  30. Singh, S. K. (2010). Benchmarking leadership styles for organizational learning in Indian context. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, 36(2), 95–101.Google Scholar
  32. Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(3), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Treinen, J. J., & Miller-Frost, S. L., (2006). Following the sun: Case studies in global software development. IBM Systems Journal, 45(4), accessed online at http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/454/treinref.html
  34. Urwick, L. F. (1952). Notes of the theory of organization. New York: American Management Association.Google Scholar
  35. Yukl, G. A., & Fu, P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by manager. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2), 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang, S., Tremaine, M., Milewski, A., Kobler, F. (2008). Delegation in global software teams: Leading or managing, poster of 2009 IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, S., Tremaine, M., Milewski, A., Fjermestad, J., & O’Sullivan, P. (2009). Occurrence and effects of leader delegation in virtual software teams. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 5(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suling Zhang
    • 1
  • Marilyn Tremaine
    • 2
  • Allen E. Milewski
    • 3
  • Jerry Fjermestad
    • 4
  • Patrick O’Sullivan
    • 5
  1. 1.International College (Suzhou Research Institute), Renmin University of ChinaSuzhouChina
  2. 2.CAIPRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA
  3. 3.Department of Software EngineeringMonmouth UniversityWest Long BranchUSA
  4. 4.School of ManagementNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyNewarkUSA
  5. 5.IBM CorporationDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations