Received: 16 February 2017
Revised: 21 February 2018
Accepted: 29 March 2018
DOI: 10.1002/job.2290
SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE
Examining the behavioral and structural characteristics of team leadership in extreme environments C. Shawn Burke1
|
Marissa L. Shuffler2
|
Christopher W. Wiese3
1
University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
Summary
2
Despite the growing interest in extreme teams, there is currently a lack of under-
Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, U.S.A.
standing concerning leadership within such teams, as the literature has predominantly
3
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Correspondence C. Shawn Burke, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. Email:
[email protected]
focused on team leadership within the context of traditional organizations. The current study investigates team leadership within the context of teams operating in extreme environments, with a specific focus on teams operating in isolated, confined environments. We seek to identify team leadership functions as well as a subset of structural characteristics associated with team leadership in extreme environments
Funding information Johnson Space Center, Grant/Award Number: NNX14AK54G; NASA, Grant/Award Number: NNX14AK54G
(i.e., formality of leadership, locus of leadership, and leadership distribution). We leverage a historiometric approach to capitalize on real historical examples of extreme teams that are rich with critical information regarding actual team leadership functions occurring in extreme settings. Results suggest that team leadership functions such as team problem solving, supporting social climate, structure and planning, and sensemaking are among the most prevalent. Results also indicated that the degree to which leadership is distributed throughout the team as well as the formality of leadership varies across action and transition phases of the team's task cycle. KEY W ORDS
extreme environments, team leadership, teams
1
|
I N T RO D U CT I O N
literature on teams operating in what can be considered extreme contexts indicates that teams will often fail under such conditions—such
The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things. He is the one who gets the people to do the greatest things (President Ronald Reagan)
intense, continuously stressful situations can emphasize a focus on self, decrease team perspective, decrease prosocial behaviors, and negatively impact team decision‐making processes (Driskell & Salas, 1991; Driskell, Salas, & Johnston, 1999). Due to the critical nature of
Space exploration teams, polar exploration teams, long‐duration
extreme team performance, there have been repeated calls for more
sailboat racing teams, mountaineering teams, and provincial recon-
research to facilitate an understanding of the factors that contribute
struction teams; what is the uniting factor among all these teams?
to team effectiveness within such environments (Bell et al., 2016;
They are extreme teams. In essence, extreme teams are teams that
Friedrich, Vessey, Schuelke, Ruark, & Mumford, 2009; Hannah,
“(a) complete their tasks in performance environments with one or
Campbell, & Matthews, 2010; Keeton, Schmidt, Slack, & Malka, 2012).
more contextual features that are atypical in level (e.g., extreme time
One element that has been argued to play a critical role in
pressure) or kind (e.g., confinement, danger) and (b) for which ineffec-
extreme team effectiveness is team leadership (e.g., Mulhearn et al.,
tive performance has serious consequences …” (Bell, Fisher, Brown, &
2016; Crosby, 2008; Hannah, Uhl‐Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009).
Mann, 2016, p. 2). Extreme team members are exposed to atypically
The purpose of leadership in any given team is to establish goals and
high levels of stressors that (a) appear in combination simultaneously
set direction that will lead to accomplishing these goals (Zaccaro,
and (b) may be a mixture of chronic and acute in nature. The broader
Rittman, & Marks, 2001). Previous research suggests that team
J Organ Behav. 2018;1–15.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job
Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1
2
BURKE
leadership is a critical component of ensuring effective team processes
2
|
ET AL.
TEAM LEADERSHIP
and team outcomes (Burke et al., 2006; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). Effective team leadership may be a critical
Leadership is not a new concept, but it is a complex one that has been
lynchpin in helping teams face the challenges of extreme contexts,
extensively researched throughout history and has been connected to
by performing necessary functions that can aid in reducing stressors
a range of team and organizational performance factors (Yukl, 2006).
specific to the task at hand as well as supporting a positive social
However, most leadership research has focused on leading individuals
climate that encourages effective teamwork under difficult circum-
or individual leader–follower relationships (DeChurch, Hiller, Murase,
stances (Zaccaro, Heinen, & Shuffler, 2009). However, to date, there
Doty, & Salas, 2010), neither of which directly speaks to the processes
has been little investigation regarding how team leaders can aid in
involved in leading teams. In focusing on team leadership, attention
facilitating effective team processes and performance within extreme
must be paid to what leader(s) do to build and maintain the dynamic
contexts. Accordingly, it becomes imperative to understand what
processes and states that facilitate coordinated team action; a focus
leaders can do to mitigate challenges and facilitate optimal team
is lacking within the literature on individual leadership (Kozlowski,
interactions within such environments so that team performance is
Watola, Jensen, Kim, & Botero, 2009).
maximized.
Most recognize leadership as a process of social influence where
In particular, although the team leadership literature offers
the role of team leadership is “to do or get done, whatever is not being
evidence for what types of functions may be most critical for leading
adequately handled for group needs” (McGrath, 1962, p. 5). In this
teams in traditional organizational settings, it is unclear if these
vein, leaders must engage in social problem solving, which, in turn,
functions are similar or different in leading for extreme contexts.
moves the team towards their objective or goal(s). In exploring team
Additionally, given the complexity of extreme teams, the structure of
leadership in this manner, researchers have begun to identify how
leadership may also look very different; there may be multiple leaders
leaders can facilitate the team's ability to develop the shared behavior,
on a team, with different members sharing leadership responsibilities
cognition, and affect that allow teams to progress towards and accom-
or rotating leadership to ensure effectiveness during different phases
plish team goals. In setting and maintaining the above conditions, team
of teamwork (Zaccaro & DeChurch, 2012). Overall, the need to
leaders engage in social problem solving whereby they are responsible
understand team leadership in such contexts has become increasingly
for ensuring that problems impacting goal attainment are diagnosed,
recognized (e.g., Suedfeld, 2012). Yet Hannah et al. (2009) noted that
solutions are generated, and plans are developed and implemented
“leadership in extreme contexts may be one of the least researched
(Zaccaro et al., 2009). In doing the above, leaders are building the
areas in the leadership field.” (p. 897).
shared affective, behavioral, and cognitive capacity within the team
Therefore, the goal of the current study is to move the literature
that facilitates coordinated interaction in response to social problems.
forward in understanding the leadership functions and structural com-
Leveraging work of Fleishman et al. (1991), it is argued that leaders
ponents of leadership occurring in extreme contexts. In doing so, we
influence the development of team cognition through processes such
offer two major advancements in this area. First, we identify prevalent
as sensemaking, sensegiving, identifying problem needs, planning, and
team leadership functions that occur in extreme team contexts, which
developing and motivating team members (Zaccaro et al., 2001).
offers insight as to whether existing taxonomies are relevant to such
Leaders also influence team affect in that feedback, selecting and
teams and, if so, what functions may be most often implemented.
developing personnel, and utilizing and monitoring personnel
Second, we identify key structural characteristics associated with lead-
resources can impact team affective states such as conflict and emo-
ership in extreme teams, namely, the degree to which leadership is
tion. Finally, leadership processes such as planning, coordinating per-
carried out via formal or informal leaders, the degree to which leader-
formance strategies, developing members, motivating, and providing
ship is shared by multiple members or contained within a single indi-
feedback to members may impact motivational states such as cohe-
vidual, and how structure of leadership may shift in response to
sion and collective efficacy (Zaccaro et al., 2001). The development
changing team needs over time. These advancements meet a critical
of these emergent states as well as leadership processes, which
need for expanding team leadership theory and research into extreme
facilitate team coordination (i.e., matching member capabilities to role
contexts, as well as offering practical guidance regarding the leader-
requirements, offer clear strategies, monitoring environmental
ship functions and structural characteristics that need to be addressed.
changes, providing feedback, and recalibrating action), results in teams
To achieve our aims, we employ historiometry (Simonton, 2003)
being able to capitalize on the potential synergy present and maximize
to analyze archival documentation of crew interaction within the con-
team performance.
text of historical events wherein teams were operating in extreme
The work of Kozlowski and colleagues (2009; 1996) also speaks
environments. In the following, we first present background on team
to this notion of functional leadership by highlighting dynamic
leadership and a set of hypotheses driving our inductive approach.
processes that leaders engage in to move teams through a
Next, we summarize our methodology and then present our results
developmental progression. Specifically, Kozlowski et al. (2009) argue
along with a discussion of their implications. In summarizing thematic
that as team's progress through developmental transitions (i.e., new,
findings across the different leadership functions and structural
novice, expert, and adaptive), the role of the team leader also
components of leadership needed in extreme teams, we offer both
changes (i.e., mentor, instructor, coach, and facilitator) as does the
answers to our research questions as well as provide future avenues
team leader's focus (i.e., identification and commitment, taskwork
for exploring and conceptualizing critical leadership needs for teams
capability, teamwork capability, and adaptive capability). Most
in these extreme settings.
recently, Burke, Monsky, and Salas (2017) have further expanded on
BURKE
3
ET AL.
this notion by beginning to delineate the functions that may be
Morgeson et al. (2010) argue for the importance of the following lead-
most relevant within each focus point.
ership functions: monitoring team, managing team boundaries, chal-
In essence, the prior work on team leadership argues that team
lenging the team, performing team task, solving problems, provision
leadership creates the enabling conditions for effective team perfor-
of resources, encouraging team self‐management, and supporting the
mance (Hackman, 2002) by developing and maintaining the shared
social climate (see Table 1 for definitions). Using this aforementioned
behavior, affect, and cognition, which facilitates explicit/implicit coor-
theoretical and empirical basis, Morgeson et al. (2010) offer a compre-
dination, adaptation, and team self‐regulation (Kozlowski et al., 2009).
hensive integration of the literature in the form of a broad set of lead-
Building upon prior taxonomies, incorporating recent advancements in
ership functions. Based on their review, these leadership functions are
team science, and further extracting the themes underlying functional
that which, when enacted, serve to develop and later maintain the
leadership theory are works by Morgeson, DeRue, and Karam (2010).
shared affect, behavior, and cognition shown to facilitate effective
Morgeson et al. (2010) critically reviewed the literature on team lead-
team performance. The focus on a broad set of leadership functions
ership and recent advancements in team science to identify a set of 15
has caused some to highlight the need for researchers to pay
leadership functions that coalesce within the dynamism present in
increased attention to context and, in doing so, engage in a “… valida-
team process, thereby representing the state of the art with respect
tion of the contextual influences that enhance the efficacy of some
to team leadership theory. This work acknowledges the dynamic
leadership actions and diminish others” (Zaccaro et al., 2001, p. 455).
nature of team leadership by notating leadership functions that are
In this vein, we next describe the context in which team leadership
most relevant during two temporal phases that have been argued for
is embedded such that hypotheses can be developed.
within teams: transition and action. Transition phases have been described as those periods of time where teams are primarily focused on mission analysis, planning, and strategy formulation (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Morgeson
3 | E X T R E M E T E A M S A S A CR I T I C A L T E A M L EA D E R S H I P C O N T E X T
et al. (2010) identify the following leadership functions as being important during transition phases: composing the team, defining the
Given the importance of context, we next describe the specific con-
mission, establishing expectations and goals, structure and planning,
text within which we examine team leadership: the context of extreme
training and developing the team, sensemaking, and the provision of
environments. Hannah et al. (2009) define extreme environments as
feedback (see Table 1 for definitions). Further, action phases have
an “environment where one or more extreme events are occurring
been described as those periods of time when the team is focused
or are likely to occur that may exceed the organization's capacity to
on actual goal accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001). In this vein,
prevent and result in an extensive and intolerable magnitude of
TABLE 1
Taxonomy of team leadership functions (adapted from Morgeson et al., 2010)
Transition phase
Leadership function
Definitions
Compose team
“Selecting individuals who will be successful in accomplishing the team task outlined by the organization and then ensuring that the mix of individuals is appropriate over time as the team develops and the environment evolves” (Morgeson et al., 2010, p. 12). “Determining and communicating the organization's performance expectations for the team in such a way that they are broken down into tangible, comprehensive pieces” (Morgeson et al., 2010, p. 13). Creating expectations regarding what is acceptable performance and setting team goals. “Determining or assisting in determining how work will be accomplished …, who will do which aspects …, and when the work will done …” (p. 15). The provision of task and/or team training through instruction, demonstration, and ongoing coaching Identifying and assigning meaning to environmental events which may impact the team in their progress towards goals attainment. Includes the clear transmission of interpreted events to the team.
Define mission
Establish expectations/goals Structure and plan Train and develop team Sensemaking
Action phase
Provide feedback
Monitor team
Manage team boundaries
Challenge team Perform team task Solve problems Provide resources Encourage team self‐management Support social climate
Giving, seeking, and receiving task‐feedback; providing constructive feedback regarding errors and offering advice for improvement (Cannon‐Bowers, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, 1995). “Monitoring and evaluating the team's progress towards task completion, the resources available to the team, the team's external environment, and team member performance” (Morgeson et al., 2010, p. 20). Communicating and coordinating with important entities outside the team in an effort to bring in and push out key information. Also includes buffering the team from external forces which may disrupt effective work processes. Playing devil's advocate and challenging the team's assumptions, methods, and processes with the goal of facilitating the identification of the best methods for task accomplishment. Engaging or intervening in some aspect of the team's task. Participating and supporting the team in all phases of problem solving, including assessment, development of and implementation of solutions. Gathering and providing informational, personnel, and material resources needed by the team. Behaviors that foster team autonomy. Behaviors which facilitate the socioemotional health of the team.
4
BURKE
ET AL.
physical, psychological, or material consequences to—or in close phys-
crews represent intact crews, portions of the crew do, at times, rotate
ical or psycho‐social proximity to‐ organization members” (p. 898).
in/out (e.g., crew replacement is possible). This is slightly different
Within this context, the extreme environments that we focus on
than the other two contexts where crew replacement is nearly impos-
include space exploration, polar exploration, and long‐duration
sible (polar exploration) or most often precipitated by an extreme
sailboat racing. Although all three may be considered extreme action
event (long‐duration sailboat racing). Moreover, mission durations
teams, they differ in the degree to which they are isolated and con-
tend to be shorter than within the other contexts analyzed.
fined and the nature of the extreme events that are typical within each context. Examining team leadership within this cross section of environments allows us to identify the aspects of team leadership that
3.2
|
Polar exploration
generalize across contexts, as well as those areas of contextual differ-
Polar exploration refers to the process of the journey to and explora-
ences. To assist in fostering an understanding of each context, a brief
tion of the Artic and/or Antarctica. Although polar exploration con-
description of each is provided. We also delineate how each context
tinues into present time, the primary sources that form our data set
aligns with several defining characteristics of extreme environments
represent polar explorations as documented by Robert Falcon Scott,
(i.e., location in time, magnitude of consequence, probability of conse-
Ernest Shackleton, and Ronald Amundsen. Polar explorers typically
quences, physical or psychosocial proximity, and form of threat;
made their transcontinental journey by navigating through often icy
Hannah et al., 2009; see Table 2).
waters and marching across land. For example, in January of 1915, Shackleton sailed on the Endurance through a thousand miles of
3.1
|
packed ice, only for his ship to become locked in ice (where it drifted
Space exploration
for 10 months) a day short of his destination. Ultimately, Shackleton
Space exploration is a mission critical environment whereby teams of
and a small skeleton crew were forced to use a small lifeboat to
two to six individuals work both independently and interdependently
journey over 850 miles of heavy seas to the closest civilian outpost.
to accomplish mission essential tasks. Similar to the other two con-
Physical conditions were harsh within this context, crews were often
texts described below, errors in this environment can have life‐threat-
placed in life‐threatening situations, and little reachback to friends
ening consequences. Team members tend to be highly educated and
and family back home existed. Missions often lasted several years.
skilled, and crews are often multicultural. Training for spaceflight is intense, with the average astronaut being in training anywhere between 5 and 10 years from the time they are selected to fly (Vessey,
3.3
|
Long‐duration sailboat racing
2014). Current missions have reachback capabilities to ground sup-
Long‐duration sailboat racing is often considered an extreme environ-
port/mission control; however, depending on the exact location of
ment due to the unpredictability that is associated with ocean racing.
the spacecraft in orbit, communication delays may exist.
Racing is characterized by variations in workload and close confined
The sources that form the primary data for our study in terms of
quarters. Wave height often varies during portions of the race, with
spaceflight originate from crews operating onboard the International
larger waves being of enough height and force to cause a crew to be
Space Station, Mir, Skylab, and Salyut, as well as crews participating
up the whole night trying to make sure that the ship stays afloat while
as part of the Mars 500 study. Within the above contexts, mission
simultaneously being pelted by water from above and on the deck. It is
lengths vary based on payload and the platform but range from around
not uncommon for the crew to be exposed to three‐story swells and
30 to 500 days—with most averaging around 6 months. For the
iceberg‐covered seas that must be navigated. Crews typically average
inflight crews, the environment represents an isolated, confined envi-
around nine crewmembers that race 24 hr a day. Races can take over
ronment where the degree of confinement and isolation is dictated by
9 months to complete and may cover as many as 39,000 nautical
the size of the spacecraft and location in orbit. Although spaceflight
miles. Although crewmembers may race for more than 20 days at a
TABLE 2
Contexts mapped to characteristics of extreme environments Spaceflight
Polar exploration
Long‐duration sailboat racing
Isolation
Moderate
High
Low
Confinement
Moderate–high
High
High
Duration
Moderate
Long
Moderate–long
Predictability
Moderate
Low
Low
Crew size
Small
Large
Moderate
Location in time
Exclusively in situation
Primarily in situation
Primarily in situation
Magnitude of consequences
High
High
High
Probability of consequences
High
High
High
Leader–follower proximity
Mixed physical
Close physical
Close physical
Form of threat
Physical, psychological
Physical, psychological
Physical
Team characteristics
Event characteristics
BURKE
5
ET AL.
time (and are relatively confined during this time), races have several
ensuring that teams are developing and maintaining the shared affect,
legs whereby the crew may stop at different ports. Crew size is smaller
behavior, and cognition that facilitates coordination and builds capac-
than the typical crew used in polar exploration.
ity within the team. This, in turn, allows them to more fully engage in team behaviors such as mutual performance monitoring and back up behavior.
4 | T EA M L EA DE R S H I P F U N CT I O N S I N E X T RE M E TE A M C O N T EX T S
Hypothesis 2. Training and developing the team is a critical transition phase leadership function for teams operating in extreme environments.
Although the three extreme contexts chosen differ in many regards, uniting the three is a focus on environmental complexity and/or unpredictability, confinement, and the significant durations for which and significant others. Moreover, when an extreme event occurs,
4.2 | Leadership functions in action phases of extreme teamwork
although the consequences are most immediately directed at a small
When thinking about leadership during the action phases of the team's
number of individuals, the magnitude of the consequences is high in
task cycle within extreme teams, solving problems becomes a critical
that they are often life‐threatening. The form of threat within all three
leadership function. By the very definition, extreme teams operate in
contexts not only is primarily physical but also has psychological com-
environments that are complex, dynamic, and often unpredictable (see
ponents. Additionally, there is high visibility of mission success/failure
Table 2), and therefore, engaging in problem solving in situ such that
outside the immediate team. Finally, the majority of incidents we
adaptive action can be taken to an unexpected event is critical. The
identified regarding extreme teams primarily speak to the interactions
magnitude of consequences as well as the probability of conse-
that occur when a team is already in the extreme environment situa-
quences when teams fail to appropriately respond to environmental
tion (i.e., not during the initial planning phases of the team's constitu-
changes are high, often life threatening within all three contexts under
tion). Together, these themes result in important implications for the
study.
the teams are isolated and/or confined away from family, friends,
types of leadership functions expected. We next break down these
Two other critical leadership functions within extreme teams are
functions based on the transition and action phases to better identify
driven by the isolated and confined nature of the teams under study,
when they might occur.
as well as their duration—monitoring the team and challenging the team. Within teams that have moderate to high degrees of isolation
4.1 | Leadership functions in transition phases of extreme teamwork
from outside entities, monitoring and challenging would seem to go hand‐in‐hand in an effort to avoid groupthink (Janis, 1982). Monitoring is also important within this context to assist in determining when
We first expect that due to the event‐based nature of these extreme
team members might become overloaded to the stressors, as other
team incidents, several of the team leadership functions seen early
members can provide psychosocial support or possibly serve as
on in team or mission formation most likely will not appear (i.e., com-
backup to the overloaded team member. Additionally, monitoring of
pose/restructure team, define mission, and establish expectations/
not only task progress but also crew interaction is critical in that it
goals). Accordingly, we expect that transition phase leadership func-
may be a mechanism by which mistakes can be caught early before
tions in the extreme team incidents identified will primarily deal with
they cascade and have life‐threatening consequences.
adaptive processes (e.g., structure/planning, sensemaking, and train/
Teams working under stressful conditions, such as those present
develop) as well as managing the complexity and dynamism of the
in extreme environments, will often lose sight of the team's overarch-
environment. Limited reachback capabilities, tight coupling and cas-
ing goal and create conditions whereby lower‐status team members
cading of events, and the high magnitude of consequences in extreme
become compliant to the input of high‐status members (Driskell
teams essentially create a need for the leader(s) to ensure that the
et al., 1999). In such situations, monitoring and challenging the team
team is appropriately making sense of environmental events so that
may mitigate the tendency of lower‐status members to not offer input
team actions can be quickly adapted in light of changing conditions.
or speak up when surrounded by members of higher status. Challeng-
Therefore, we propose the following:
ing the team is also a mechanism through which the devil's advocate
Hypothesis 1. Sensemaking and structure/(re)planning are critical transition phase leadership functions for teams operating in extreme environments. Due to the magnitude of the consequences within these extreme contexts, we also pose that another key transition phase leadership function is training and developing the team. Teams operating in
role can be enacted as a way to minimize the potential of groupthink. This leads to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 3. Monitoring the team, challenging the team, and solving problems will be critical action phase leadership functions for teams operating in extreme environments.
extreme contexts drive a need for leadership that instills a learning cli-
Up to this point, the leadership functions that have been argued
mate. This is similar to many of the tenets within high‐reliability orga-
to be critical are primarily those which are task‐focused; however, it
nizations yet at a team level. Team training and development includes
is also important that leaders work to facilitate and maintain the psy-
not only ensuring that task skills do not decay but also focusing on
chosocial well‐being of the team. Leadership functions, which serve
6
BURKE
ET AL.
to support the social climate within extreme teams, are important due
no direct responsibility for a team's leadership and performance (infor-
to the high degrees of stress and negative affect that can arise due to
mal)” (Morgeson et al., 2010, p. 8). Conversely, locus of leadership
the isolation from traditional support systems. Leadership functions
refers to “whether the leader is a member of the team and thus
that support the social climate facilitate the team's motivation to
engaged in part of the team's task cycle (internal) or whether the
persist under difficult situations, as well as build cohesion within the
leader is not a member of the team and thus outside the team's day‐
crew. This, in turn, should work to foster the team perspective that
to‐day activities (external)” (Morgeson et al., 2010, p. 8). Moreover,
often falters under stress (Driskell et al., 1999). Thereby, the following
the authors provide some exemplars of the types of leaders that might
hypothesis is put forth:
operate in each of the four quadrants. For example, when examining
Hypothesis 4. Supporting the social climate will be a critical action phase leadership function for teams operating in extreme environments.
internal leaders, formal exemplars include team leaders and project managers, whereas informal examples include shared and emergent leaders. Looking at the external sources of leadership, examples of formal leaders include sponsors, coaches, and team advisors, whereas informal examples include mentors, champions, and executive
5 T HE M A N I F E S TA T I O N O F L E A D ER S H I P STRUCTURE IN EXTREME TEAM CONTEXTS |
coordinators. The argument for a team‐centric approach to leadership whereby leadership capacity is built within the team also sets up the possibility
Traditionally, research has primarily focused on a single source of lead-
of leadership being enacted by formal or informal leaders. Within
ership most often manifested in terms of formally designated leader-
teams that routinely face the possibility of extreme events, the impor-
ship roles. However, the functional approach to leadership implicitly
tance of leadership being enacted by a mixture of formal and informal
argues that leadership can be distributed throughout the team.
leaders increases as leadership functions are distributed throughout
Although still a relatively new area of study, there have been promis-
the team and leader–follower proximity is high due to the isolated
ing findings to suggest that this distributed structure of leadership
nature of the teams. Additionally, when leadership functions are
facilitates effective teamwork and enhances team performance (e.g.,
enacted by a mixture of formal and informal leadership, it capitalizes
Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). In light of this, team leadership
on the synergy present within the team. Further, support for the
researchers have begun to move beyond an approach, which is solely
importance of formal and informal leadership within such environ-
leader‐centric to one that reflects a mixture of leader and team‐centric
ments can be seen in the literature on high‐reliability teams. High‐reli-
approaches (Zaccaro et al., 2009). Leader‐centric approaches focus
ability teams are those which operate in mission critical environments
primarily on the role of the individual leader and the manner in which
where the cost of errors can be life‐threatening (Wilson, Burke, Priest,
they develop and maintain effective team processes and states, which,
& Salas, 2005). Within such teams, a key operating tenet is deference
in turn, facilitate team performance. In contrast, team‐centric
to expertise whereby communication of expertise is communicated
approaches emphasize principles of collective or shared leadership,
from all levels, attention is paid to those on the front line regardless
where the responsibility for directing and managing team dynamics
of rank, and diversity is cultivated (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). The focus
is distributed throughout the team (see Manz & Sims, 1980; Pearce
on pulling expertise from all levels and a focus on those on the front
& Conger, 2003). Moreover, recent work has suggested that team‐
line suggest a mixture of formal and informal leadership where less
centric approaches to leadership may explain more variance in team
attention is placed on status and more emphasis is placed on
performance than traditional leader‐centric approaches (Ensley,
knowledge and ability. Although these high‐reliability teams are often
Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006). The predominant amount of work that
not isolated and confined, the mission critical nature of many of these
has been conducted on team‐centric approaches, however, has been
teams affords them some similarities to those teams operating in
done outside the context of extreme teams. Therefore, the ways in
extreme contexts. Finally, leadership in extreme contexts will be enacted almost
which leadership is manifested are an important aspect to examine within the context of extreme teams.
exclusively by internal leaders given the team's isolated and confined nature. This is in contrast to teams operating outside extreme environ-
5.1
|
Leadership formality and locus
ments where the operating context does not place such boundaries. Given the above, we propose the following:
Extending existing work on team leadership, Morgeson et al. (2010)
Hypothesis 5. Leadership in extreme teams that are iso-
take a mixed approach (leader‐centric, team‐centric) and argue for
lated and confined will be primarily internal.
the importance of research, which explicitly examines the formality and locus of leadership. In this vein, a framework is developed, which
Hypothesis 6. Leadership in extreme teams that are iso-
begins to put forth arguments regarding the leadership source that
lated and confined will be a mixture of formal and
may be in the most efficacious position to enact specific leadership
informal.
functions within the action and transition phases. The crossing of leadership formality with the locus of leadership produces four quadrants of possible leadership sources. In this context, formality of leadership
5.2
|
Leadership distribution
is defined as reflecting “whether the responsibility for team perfor-
In pulling the thread that leadership sources within team may take
mance is formalized in the organization (formal) or whether there is
many forms, Morgeson et al. (2010) highlight a gap in the current
BURKE
7
ET AL.
literature, whereby the primary focus has been on formally appointed
that “One of the most important keys to successful performance …
leaders to the exclusion of other forms. This, in turn, leads to calls for
is empowering everyone on the team to think and act like a leader”
future research to investigate nontraditional forms of leadership struc-
(p. 16). Thereby, we put forth the following hypothesis:
tures (e.g., moving beyond formal leadership) and the need to explore multiple sources simultaneously (e.g., formal and informal) so as to better understand the full leadership capacity of the team (Morgeson et al., 2010). Examples of formal sources of leadership include team leaders (e.g., commanders and captains), project managers, sponsors,
Hypothesis 7. In terms of structure, team leadership in extreme teams will be enacted through a mixture of hierarchical and shared leadership, but the latter form of leadership will be the most prominent.
coaches, and team advisors (Morgeson et al., 2010). Informal sources include shared and emergent leadership as well as mentors, champions, and executive coordinators (Morgeson et al., 2010).
6 | TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS AND L E A D E R S H I P S T R U C T U RE
Recent work is beginning to address the notion of investigating more nontraditional forms of leadership and has found that often the
A final consideration in examining leadership in extreme teams
nontraditional forms have been shown to predict not only team
relates to the impact of temporal factors on the manner in which
performance but also often over and above traditional forms
leadership is enacted. Marks et al. (2001) put forth a seminal paper
(D'Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016; Nicolaides et al.,
on task cycles within teams, which serves to delineate the dynamic
2014; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014).
nature of team interaction during a performance episode. Specifi-
The emerging literature on shared or collective leadership is of noted
cally, Marks et al. (2001) argue that different team processes are
importance here. However, as with the predominant amount of work
important at different phases of task execution. In essence, teams
on team leadership, the majority of this research has been done within
perform in “temporal cycles of goal directed activity, called
the context of traditional teams. Given repeated calls for the impor-
episodes” (p. 359). These episodes in turn are marked by periods
tance of context in understanding teams (Gladstein, 1984; Hackman,
of action and transition processes. Although this notion of action
2003; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008), this begs the ques-
and transition phases was originally proposed in terms of teamwork
tion as to the leadership sources most instrumental in extreme teams.
behaviors, it has since been extended to team leadership (Morgeson
The distribution of leadership throughout the team serves to build
et al., 2010).
leadership capacity within the team and allows members to serve as
Despite these advancements and repeated calls to better under-
redundant systems for one another extending the ways in which team
stand temporal dynamics in teams (e.g., Harrison, Price, Gavin, &
members can back one another up. In the cases of teams operating in
Florey, 2002; Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009) and the role of
extreme environments, this becomes critical, as the atypical stressors
team leadership, there has been limited work in this vein (see
present in such environments can easily overload individual team
Kozlowski et al., 2009, for an exception). Thereby, in thinking about
members. Having fellow team members who have the ability, attitudi-
the sources of leadership most typically seen as being functional in
nal, and cognitive capacity to engage in leadership functions can
extreme teams, another related question that arises is whether partic-
facilitate team synergy, in essence allowing members who have the
ular types of leadership functions are more likely to be enacted by a
cognitive capacity to step in and back up other members in terms of
particular leadership source. For example, in thinking about transition
leadership activities, as needed. Additionally, it also leverages what is
phase leadership functions (e.g., composing the team, defining the mis-
known regarding high‐reliability organizations—paying attention to
sion, and establishing goals/expectations), one might expect that the
expertise wherever it may lie and realizing that members have differ-
formal leader is in the best position to enact these activities due to
ent skill sets and good teams learn to make the most efficacious use
their designated authority. Moreover, within extreme teams, where
of member capabilities. This is especially true when working in
errors are of such high consequence, an external leader may be in
extreme environments.
the best position to facilitate transition functions due to the ability
This argument is supported through initial evidence based on
to maintain a broader situation awareness that is sometimes
interviews conducted with NASA subject matter experts (SMEs). In
constrained within teams under pressure (Driskell et al., 1999). How-
essence, results from these interviews suggest that not only is leader-
ever, there is the additional constraint within isolated confined teams
ship a key role in long‐duration, distance‐exploration missions, but also
that there may be limited reachback to an external leader; therefore,
that leadership functions are often distributed throughout the team
transition functions may fall more predominantly within the realm of
and implemented through a mixture of formal and informal leadership
an internal leader.
(Burke, Monsky, & Salas, unpublished manuscript). Additional anec-
In contrast, when thinking about the leadership functions argued
dotal evidence for the importance of leadership being distributed
for within the action phase of teamwork (e.g., monitor team, manage
throughout the team can also be seen in other extreme contexts
team boundaries, challenge team, and solve problems), it may be
(i.e., adventure racing and high‐altitude mountaineering). For instance,
expected that these activities may be more frequently shared through-
in talking about the sport of adventure racing, Nagle reports that “part
out the team as dictated by the ebb and flow of task demands and
of our success lies in having tremendous redundancy within our team.
requisite leadership capabilities. Given the action‐orientated nature
So we just allow leadership to flow, hour by hour, to whoever is stron-
of these activities and the isolated nature of many extreme teams,
gest at the time” (as cited in Dahle, 1999, p. 1). Similarly, in talking
we would expect that these would primarily be conducted by an inter-
about extreme mountaineering environments, Levine (2014) stated
nal leader. Although we have set forth informal hypotheses regarding
8
BURKE
ET AL.
the interaction between team leadership functions and leadership
sailboat racing paired with Volvo Ocean Race, America's Cup, and
source given the relative infancy of this piece of the literature, we still
Whitbread Race; and (c) space exploration paired with Mir, Skylab,
view that these are exploratory in nature. This leads us to our final set
Shuttle, ISS, Salyut, and Mars500. Later, similar keywords were used
of hypotheses:
on Google to identify potential blogs or social media sources with
Hypothesis 8. Leadership occurring during the transition phase of team performance will be primarily enacted by a single leader.
respect to the more recent events (e.g., long duration sailboat races and space exploration). In total, the complete set of searches resulted in approximately 124 potential sources to examine (see Appendix A for a sample).
Hypothesis 9. Leadership occurring during the action
The initial set of sources was then further narrowed according to
phase of team performance will be primarily distributed
the following four criteria: (a) Sources must describe interdependent
throughout the team.
interaction among the crew/team; (b) teams being described must be operating in mission critical environments where errors are often life‐threatening; (c) teams must be representative of intact teams
7
METHOD
|
operating over a significant duration (i.e., more than a few weeks); (d) there must be a reasonable expectation of team leadership func-
The study of team leadership within extreme teams is challenging at
tions being present and described; and (e) source must be accessible.
best due to the nature of such teams and the relative frequency with
Thirty‐nine sources passed this criteria and moved to the next stage
which such teams exist. Therefore, as a first step to understanding
—incident extraction.
team leadership in these contexts, we employed historiometry (Simonton, 2003). Historiometry is “that collection of methods in which archival data concerning historic individuals and events are sub-
7.2
jected to quantitative analyses in order to test nomothetic hypotheses
We paired historiometry with the critical incident technique as a way
about human thought, feeling, and action” (Simonton, 1998, p. 269).
to systematically extract data from the archival sources. The critical
Benefits of this approach include the contextual richness of the data
incident technique has been described as “a method for obtaining spe-
and the corresponding external validity. Leadership is an area that
cific, behaviorally focused descriptions of work or other activities”
has been particularly advantageous to explore with this approach, as
(Bownas & Bernardin, 1988, p. 1120). For the purposes of this study,
it is often well documented as a source of success or failure in histor-
each critical incident represented an observable leadership behavior
ical events (e.g., DeChurch et al., 2011; Vessey, Barrett, Mumford,
occurring within the context of teams, described the context in which
Johnson, & Litwiller, 2014).
the behavior occurred, and was linked to a specific outcome.
|
Critical incident technique
The third author trained 15 psychology students on the critical
7.1
|
Historiometric analysis
incident techniques. Following training, each of the 15 coders went through three rounds of independent coding and feedback before
The first step was to identify a set of extreme environments within
they were allowed to code the source material to ensure adequate skill
which teams would be embedded and working under conditions of
and similarity in their coding technique. After these three rounds of
isolation and confinement. This initial step returned a number of
training, the 15 coders reviewed all source material and began to
potential contexts, but contexts were down‐selected based on the
extract critical incidents related to team leadership. This initial round
degree to which the types of stressors present in the environments
of incident extraction resulted in 311 incidents (i.e., 100 incidents
overlapped with those typically seen in long‐duration spaceflight
for polar exploration, 101 for long‐duration ocean races, and 110 for
(Dietz et al., 2010) as this was our original context of study. In
space exploration). These incidents were then reviewed by the first
down‐selecting extreme environments, we worked with our partners
and second authors for quality and redundancy. In judging incidents
at NASA to decide on a final set (i.e., space exploration, polar explora-
on quality, a focus was put on incidents that (a) could stand alone in
tion, and long‐duration sailboat racing). Once an initial set of extreme
their interpretation, (b) were clearly described, (c) where it was appar-
environments was decided upon, searches began for archived data
ent who was engaging in the leadership action described, and (d) a
sources.
clear outcome or effect of the leadership action was described. At this
Next, searches to identify the specific archival documents that
time, incidents were also checked for clarity and redundancy. Redun-
would be used to provide data as to the nature of team leadership
dancy involved cases where a single incident and corresponding action
within extreme environments were begun. To identify potential
was pulled from different sources. In these cases, a single description
sources, searches were conducted in the following data repositories:
of the incident was kept. There were also a few instances where
EBSCOhost database, Google, Google Scholar, NASA data reposito-
redundant accounts of the same interaction occurred but were
ries, amazon.com, blogs, and communities of practice. In searching
described in a conflicting manner. These incidents were dropped as
the aforementioned databases, the following keywords were used:
the validity of the specific descriptions was not as apparent as in cases
Antarctic exploration, long duration sailboat racing, ocean sailboat
where multiple sources describe the same incident in the same or
racing, and space exploration. These primary terms were then paired
similar manner. At the conclusion of this process, the final data set
with more narrowly defined terms, specifically: (a) Antarctic explora-
included 152 incidents (i.e., 40 polar exploration incidents, 66 long
tion paired with Shackleton, Scott, Amundsen; (b) long duration/ocean
duration sailboat race incidents, and 46 spaceflight incidents). The final
BURKE
9
ET AL.
data set included incidents extracted from the following events: polar
absence of this function within the current corpus of materials is an
expeditions (Robert F. Scott, Ernest Shackleton, Ronald Amundsen,
artifact of the methodology and source material as very little of the
Thomas Musgrave, and Charles F. Hall), long‐duration sailboat racing
source material gathered described events that happened with the
(Clipper Round the World Yacht Race, Sydney‐Hobart Ocean Race,
crew prior to being in the situation. The archived documents primarily
and Volvo Ocean Race), and spaceflight (Space Shuttle, Mir, Mars
described extreme events and team interaction once the teams were
500, International Space Station, and Skylab).
already in the situation. In addition, to those leadership functions
Once the incidents had been reviewed, they were subjected to a
argued for within Morgeson et al. (2010), four other leadership func-
series of analyses using standard card sorting procedures conducted
tions emerged within these extreme contexts: dominance, recognition
by two teams of three SMEs. The SME teams were composed of
and utilization of expertise, leading by example, and self‐management.
Industrial/Organizational psychologists and doctoral students with
However, these functions were not prominently seen and therefore
extensive experience with respect to both leadership and teams. The
are not included in our primary analyses.
first SME team independently coded each critical incident with respect
Hypotheses 1–4 described those team leadership functions within
to (a) the leadership behavior represented, (b) whether the leadership
the transition and action phases of the team's task cycle that were
behavior was enacted by a single individual or multiple individuals (i.e.,
believed to be among the most critical to teams operating in extreme
individual versus shared), (c) formality of leadership (i.e., informal and
environments (and therefore appearing the most frequently). To exam-
formal—Morgeson et al., 2010), and (d) locus of leadership (i.e., internal
ine the data in relation to the hypotheses put forth, the team leader-
and external—Morgeson et al., 2010). Intraclass correlations (ICC2)
ship functions that emerged from the card sort were rank ordered in
demonstrated high levels of agreement for ratings of leader functions
terms of their frequency of occurrence. As can be seen in Table 3,
(ICC2 = .98), single versus shared leadership (ICC2 = .91), formality of
we obtained mixed results for the hypotheses put forth regarding
leadership (ICC2 = .88), and locus of leadership (ICC2 = .91) across all
the primary leadership functions. Specifically, the top five team leader-
three raters.
ship functions included supporting the social climate, solving prob-
In conducting the initial sort, the rating team used the team lead-
lems, structure and planning, sensemaking, and monitoring the team,
ership functions argued for by Morgeson et al. (2010) as a frame of
respectively. Relatively speaking, structure and planning and
reference. However, raters were instructed not to limit themselves
sensemaking collectively accounted for 74% of the transition phase
to those particular categories but to use their expertise in team lead-
functions seen, whereas team problem solving, supporting the social
ership to decide the most appropriate grouping and corresponding
climate, and monitoring the team collectively accounted for 70% of
label for each evidenced leadership function. The second set of SMEs
the action phase functions seen. These results fully support Hypothe-
conducted a back‐translation of the incidents (sorted the incidents
ses 1 and 4 but provide mixed support for Hypothesis 3 as challenging
into the labels), assisting to ensure data integrity. This process was
the team did not appear in the top five most frequently occurring
completed independently for each of the three extreme contexts—
functions. Results did not support Hypothesis 2, which argued for
spaceflight, polar exploration, and long‐duration sailboat races. At
training and developing the team as a critical transition behavior.
the conclusion of rating process, a series of consensus meetings were
Although training and developing the team (including provision of
held among the three primary SMEs to resolve any area of
feedback) did appear frequently, accounting for approximately 19%
disagreement.
of the transition functions seen, it did not fall within the top five when collapsing across all action and transition functions.
8 8.1
RESULTS
|
|
Leadership functions
8.2
|
Leadership distribution
A second area of interest pertains to the manner in which leadership is manifested. Specifically, Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 relate to the degree to
One of the primary questions of interest was the degree to which team leadership functions as argued for within the broader literature on team leadership would generalize to teams operating in extreme
which each leadership behavior was enacted by a single individual or distributed throughout the team such that the incident described multiple individuals exhibiting leadership functions (i.e., shared
environments. In this vein, we put forth four hypotheses regarding those leadership functions that would be expected to be most prevalent in these contexts based on some of the defining features of extreme contexts.
TABLE 3
Top five leadership functions witnessed in extreme teams
Leadership functions
Phase of task cycle
Rank order
% of comments supporting rank (%)
the team leadership functions that appear in one of the latest integra-
Support social climate
Action
1
21
tive reviews on team leadership (i.e., Morgeson et al., 2010; see
Solve problems
Action
2
20
Structure and plan
Transition
3
15
Sensemaking
Transition
4
09
Monitor team
Action
5
06
Results of the thematic analysis indicated evidence for nearly all
Table 1 for descriptions). The one behavior, which did not appear in our corpus of materials, was defining the mission. Defining the mission has been shown to be critical outside of the context of extreme teams as it serves to create direction for the team and begins the development of shared mental models among members. We believe that the
• Technical, Team
10
BURKE
TABLE 4
ET AL.
Degree to which leadership functions are shared Form of leadership Antarctic Individual
Space Shared
Individual
Shared
Long‐duration sailboat
Across contexts
Individual
Individual
Shared
Transition phase Functions Compose/restructure team
X
Establish expect and goals
X
x
X
x
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Structure and plan
X
Train and develop/provide feedback
X
Sensemaking
X
x
x
X X X
Action phase functions
X
Monitor team Manage team boundaries Challenge team
Shared
X
X
X
Perform team task Solve problems
X
Provide resources
X
Encourage team self‐management
X
Support social climate
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
X X X
X
X X
X X
X
‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐
X
X
The bolded entries within each cell indicate the predominant form of each leadership functions within each of the three contexts. Nonbolded entries within each cell indicate that the leadership function was enacted through a mixture of individual and shared leadership; the nonbolded cell entry represents the form exhibited with lower frequency. The across context column represents the predominant manner in which each leadership function was exhibited when collapsing across contexts.
leadership). Results, which speak to the above hypotheses, can be
In addition, within each extreme context (polar exploration, space
found in Table 4. Hypothesis 7 was supported in that the team
exploration, and long‐duration sailboat racing), the areas in which the
leadership functions seen within the extreme teams operating in
cell contains a bolded “X” indicates the predominant form of leader-
extreme contexts were enacted through a combination of leadership
ship for that function within that context. In the case, where there
residing within a single individual as well as leadership distributed
are two bolded “Xs” for a particular function within a given context,
throughout the team.
it represents that both forms of leadership appeared equally (e.g.,
Partial support was suggested for Hypotheses 8 and 9, which
see train and develop within space context). In looking at the individ-
dealt with leadership form in relation to transition and action phases
ual leadership functions, which comprise the higher‐order categories
within teams' task cycles. As suggested, when looking at transition
of transition and action phase, it becomes apparent in collapsing
phase leadership functions, overall there was a trend for them to be
across contexts there is support for Hypotheses 8 and 9. As seen in
enacted primarily through a single individual as compared with being
the column labeled “across contexts,” there are more instances of
distributed throughout the team (56% and 44%, respectively).
leadership being enacted in a leader‐centric manner (by a single indi-
However, in looking at the manner in which action phase leadership
vidual; 80%) as compared with the action phase functions, which have
functions were enacted overall, we see a trend for a predominant
a greater number of enactments through a team‐centric approach
focus on enactment by a single individual as opposed to being distrib-
whereby leadership is distributed throughout the team (62%—team
uted throughout the team (54% and 46%, respectively). This is in con-
centric).
trast to Hypothesis 9, which predicted a greater emphasis on shared leadership within the action phase as compared with a leader‐centric approach.
8.3
|
Degree of formality
To further investigate these results, the manner in which each
Further investigating the structural aspects of team leadership was
specific leadership function was most predominantly enacted was
Hypothesis 6 that predicted team leadership within extreme environ-
examined. These results can be seen in Table 4. Within this table,
ments would be enacted by both formal and informal leaders, thereby
the individual leadership functions are represented in the rows,
taking advantage of leadership expertise wherever it may lie. Results
whereas the columns represent the leadership form by which they
begin to offer support for this hypothesis in that collapsing across con-
were enacted. For example, in looking at polar exploration, the leader-
texts, team leadership functions were seen to be enacted predomi-
ship function of train and develop, the team was enacted through a
nantly through formal and informal mechanisms and to a much lesser
leader‐centric approach (individual enactment), whereas structure
extent a mixture of formal and informal working together simulta-
and planning was enacted through both a leader and team‐centric
neously (see formality across context column). Moreover, while more
approach (individual, shared). Therefore, one can easily see the break-
exploratory in nature as no hypotheses were put forth, results begin
down for each individual leadership function.
to suggest that, in general, those transition functions seen tend to
BURKE
11
ET AL.
be enacted predominantly through formal leadership (52% of the
leadership being shared among an internal and external member.
transaction functions seen were enacted this way; see the column
Supporting Hypothesis 5, 90% of the team leadership functions seen
entitled “formality across contexts). This is in contrast to action phase
were exhibited by a leader internal to the team. Of the functions not
leadership functions, which were fairly evenly split between enact-
enacted by someone within the team, 9% were enacted by someone
ment by a formal leader (45.7% of those action phase functions were
outside the immediate team, with the remaining 1% being enacted
enacted this way) and an informal leader (42.3%).
by a combination of individuals inside and outside the immediate
Finally, while exploratory in nature, Table 5 also begins to illus-
team. Moreover, the predominant amount of team leadership enacted
trate trends for how specific functions within the action and transition
by someone outside the immediate team occurred within the context
phases were manifested in terms of formality. This can be seen by
of spaceflight and was due to the interaction with mission control.
examining the cells within the table. Specifically, each cell containing an “x” indicates that particular leadership function being enacted
9
through the source represented at the top of the column. In examining
DISCUSSION
|
the table in this manner, it becomes apparent that several leadership functions are consistently manifested by a variety of leadership
Despite the high consequences of failure within teams operating in
sources (i.e., structure and planning, problem solving, sensemaking,
extreme environments and the myriad of stressors present within such
and supporting the social climate) and consistently through a combina-
environments that may serve to make it challenging to maintain the
tion of formal, informal, and a mixture of the two leadership sources.
effective processes and states, which facilitate team performance,
Other functions tend to be enacted predominantly by formal leaders
these teams are difficult to study given the extreme settings within
(e.g., provide resources) or vary between enactment by formal and/
which they operate as well as their relatively low numbers compared
or informal leaders (e.g., establish expectations/goals, train and
with more traditional teams. The current study examined team leader-
develop, and manage team boundaries). Very few of the leadership
ship within a subset of extreme teams, which operate in isolated and
functions witnessed were enacted solely through informal sources of
confined environments through the use of archival sources that
leadership. This represents the importance of teams being flexible in
describe team interaction, and correspondingly leadership, in the con-
the enactment of leadership and creating a climate where attention
text of real teams operating in such environments.
is paid to expertise no matter where it may reside.
The results of this examination serve to contribute to the literature on extreme teams as well as the broader literature on teams. Con-
8.4
|
tributions to the literature on extreme teams include the finding that
Locus of leadership
the predominant number of team leadership functions argued for
The final set of analyses are in relation to the degree to which leader-
within the functional approach to leadership are present within teams
ship functions were enacted by someone internal to the team, external
operating in extreme environments. Moreover, there is some indirect
to the team, or a mixture such that the critical incident described
evidence that these functions are important in these environments
TABLE 5
Formality of leadership functions Formality of leadership Antarctic F
I
Space Mix
F
I
Mix
Long‐duration sailboat
Formality across contexts
F
I
F
I
Mix
52%
24%
24%
x
x
x
x
45.7%
42.3%
12%
Mix
Transition functions Compose/restructure team Establish expect and goals Structure and plan
x
Train and develop
x
Sensemaking
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Action phase functions Monitor team
x
Manage team boundaries Challenge team
x x
x
Perform team task
x
Solve problems
x
Provide resources
x
x
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
Encourage team self‐management Support social climate
x
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Entries within each cell illustrate the manner in which each leadership function was manifested (i.e., solely through formal leadership [F], solely informal leadership [I], or a mixture of formal and informal simultaneously [Mix]). Formality across contexts collapses across the three contexts to examine the degree to which leadership functions within a given phase (i.e., transition or action) were enacted by formal leaders, informal leaders, or a mixture of formal/informal simultaneously.
12
BURKE
ET AL.
as the predominant number of the teams examined in this sample
individuals but allowed to flow from all members on the team. In this
would be considered effective at least in the sense that they were able
way serving to build the leadership capacity within the team.
to adapt and survive the unexpected events present in each environ-
A final contribution of our study deals with temporal consider-
ment and to a larger degree the predominant number of these teams
ations. Although the team literature has long called for more attention
would be considered successful in that they completed the primary
being paid to time, the predominant amount of work in teams exam-
objectives of the team (i.e., exploring space, finishing in the long dura-
ines ad‐hoc teams of short duration. The teams that were the primary
tion sailboat context, or exploring polar regions).
focus of our investigation were not ad‐hoc teams but primarily intact
A second contribution to the literature on extreme teams is that
teams operating together over long periods of time. Moreover, we
our findings suggest five leadership functions that are important and
were able to begin to empirically examine how the different temporal
consistently seen across the contexts examined. The functions consist
phases of the team's task cycle may impact structural characteristics
of two transition phase functions (i.e., sensemaking and structuring
associated with team leadership. These results suggest that the nature
and planning) and three action phase functions (i.e., supporting the
of team leadership during action and transition phases may be mani-
social climate, monitoring the team, and problem solving). Leaders
fested differently. Finally, although no predictions were made to this
who engage in sensemaking and structuring and planning serve to
point in the current investigation, findings begin to point to the impor-
begin to set the building blocks for the formation, maintenance, and
tance of examining the specific functions that comprise transition and
adaptation of the shared mental models among team members that
action phases. For example, results suggested that certain leadership
will later facilitate coordinated team action during the action phases.
functions were most often enacted through a mixture of formal, infor-
Furthermore, monitoring the team and problem solving are critical
mal, and joint mechanisms, whereas other functions were most typi-
functions in complex and dynamic environments as the monitoring
cally enacted through formal mechanisms. Differences were also
alerts members to potential task or psychosocial issues that may arise
seen in the degree to which specific functions tended to be enacted
as teams are working in extreme environments, isolated and confined
in a leader or team‐centric approach. Future work should more specif-
away from family and friends. The monitoring of team behaviors
ically investigate this aspect as it begins to suggest that it is neither a
serves as initial input in the problem solving behaviors that are needed
team nor leader‐centric approach that is more appropriate, but that
in dynamic environments where extreme events are often tightly
the efficacy of one or the other approach will vary based on the par-
coupled a have cascading effects. Finally, supporting the social climate
ticular leadership function.
becomes critical in such extreme environments due to the negative affect and feelings of isolation that can arise in such environments, which in turn leads to a lack of motivation. From a practical stand-
9.1
|
Limitations
point, identification of the prevalence of these five functions may
Although the approach taken in examining the hypotheses posed in
point to a key set of leadership functions that should be trained for
this study offers many benefits for understanding team leadership in
teams preparing to operate in such environments. Although the five
extreme teams, as with all studies, it also has its limitations. For exam-
functions could be trained, they could also be used during selection
ple, although the examination of archival accounts of historical events
to comprise a team where members already have this capacity as a
provides a wealth of contextually rich information about teams oper-
way to build redundancy within the team.
ating in real contexts, it does not facilitate an understanding of the
A third contribution to the literature on extreme teams is also a
relationship of identified leadership functions or structural characteris-
contribution to the broader literature on team leadership. Specifically,
tics to their corresponding impact on team processes and emergent
the investigation of the structural aspects of leadership in extreme
states. Future research should empirically explore some of these key
teams (i.e., leadership distribution, formality, and locus). Taking a func-
relationships. Second, the fact that the source documents from which
tional perspective to leadership, we moved past solely focusing on a
the critical incidents were extracted were not written with our
leader‐centric view of leadership to one, which represents a combina-
research questions in mind is both a strength and a weakness, whereas
tion of team and leader‐centric approaches. This, in turn, opens up
the fact that the sources were not written with our specific research
several possibilities for investigating the manner in which leadership
question in mind limits the degree of bias with respect to our specific
is enacted as well as the source from which leadership arises. In this
research question. However, it does not negate the possibility that the
vein, we found evidence for leadership functions being enacted
individual's accounts of the events that are being described are biased.
through a combination of leadership distributed throughout the team
Although attempts were made to minimize this type of bias by
as well as leadership being enacted by a single individual. Furthermore,
collecting information from multiple sources, within the extreme envi-
results suggested that leadership in extreme teams was enacted by
ronments examined the archived perspectives were often limited.
both formal and informal leaders as well as formal and informal leaders
Third, although we would argue that the extreme contexts that we
working together to enact leadership. This later result is reminiscent of
examined were more similar than different, they were purposely cho-
work on high reliability organizations but brought down to the team
sen to vary along some dimensions in an attempt to cover a range of
level. Both of the above results suggest that in comprising teams to
extreme teams in isolated, confined environments. Although their var-
work within such extreme environments attention needs to be paid
iation provides a greater degree of confidence in those results, which
to selecting individuals who can alternate between leadership and
generalize across contexts, it is possible that some of the results from
followership. In addition, formal leaders should be taught to promote
the polar exploration sample may in part be an artifact of the time in
a climate where the source of leadership is not limited to high status
history that the events occurred as these are much earlier in time than
BURKE
13
ET AL.
either of the other two contexts. This is probably most relevant for the analyses that deal with the distribution of leadership. A final limitation is that the predominant amount of our source documents describe team interaction in situ thereby potentially limiting the presence of some transition functions that may only occur at initial team formation. Our hope is that this research generates additional interest into the functional leadership functions within extreme teams and how the structural characteristics associated with team leadership may vary based on temporal needs of the team (i.e., action and transition).
9.2
|
Future research
The results herein begin to provide an initial glimpse into the functions and structural characteristics of team leadership as seen in extreme teams. There are several threads that could be investigated by future research. First, and perhaps foremost, future research is needed to unpack the relationship of specific leadership functions to the team processes and emergent states that have been argued to facilitate performance in mission critical environments, especially those that serve to facilitate the socioemotional health of the team. Although the current research began to highlight how the nature of team leadership may vary based on temporal factors by focusing on leadership functions as evidenced within the transition and action phases of teamwork, future research can further pull this thread. Specifically, how do temporal factors such as the stage of team development or stage of mission impact the types of leadership functions and structures, which are important? Of note is that the primary number of the sources that were identified for analysis within the current study dealt with team leadership once the team's had already begun their mission. Therefore, it was not possible to examine differential importance of the various leadership functions or structural characteristics at different points in time—with respect to either the team's life cycle or stage of mission. It is our hope that the findings presented here and the many new questions that emerge will serve to spur future research in this area. ACKNOWLEDGEMEN T This work was supported by a NASA grant (NNX14AK54G) to Dr. Shawn Burke, Principal Investigator, Dr. Eduardo Salas and Dr. Marissa Shuffler, Co‐Principal Investigators. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the organizations with which they are affiliated or their sponsoring institutions.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What types of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta‐analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307. Cannon‐Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. (1995). Defining team competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333–380). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217–1234. Crosby, R. (2008). An analysis of leadership behavior in extreme military contexts. Unpublished master's thesis. Naval PostGraduate School; Monterey, California Dahle, C. (1999). Xtreme teams. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www. fastcompany.com/38070/xtreme‐teams DeChurch, L. A., Burke, C. S., Shuffler, M. L., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2011). A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 152–169. DeChurch, L. A., Hiller, N. J., Murase, T., Doty, D., & Salas, E. (2010). Leadership across levels: Levels of leaders and their levels of impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1069–1085. Dietz, A. S., Weaver, S. J., Bedwell, W. L., Sierra, M. J., Salas, E., Smith‐ Jentsch, K., & Fiore, S. M. (2010, March). Stress in long‐duration spaceflight teams: Exploring the complex network of critical antecedents impacting team processes and performance. Unpublished white paper. 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(7), 1964–1991. Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1991). Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 473–478. Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. (1999). Does stress lead to a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(4), 291–302. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231. Fleishman, E. A., Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein, M. B. (1991). Taxonomic efforts in the description of leader behavior: A synthesis and functional interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 2(4), 245–287. Friedrich, T. L., Vessey, W. B., Schuelke, M. J., Ruark, G. A., & Mumford, M. D. (2009). A framework for understanding collective leadership: The selective utilization of leader and team expertise within networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 933–958. Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.
ORCID C. Shawn Burke
Burke, C. S., Monsky, D., & Salas, E. (2017). Moving towards an understanding of team roles in long duration, distance exploration missions. Unpublished manuscript.
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-8405
Marissa L. Shuffler Christopher W. Wiese
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6292-8950 http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3932-4008
RE FE R ENC E S Bell, S. T., Fisher, D. M., Brown, S. G., & Mann, K. E. (2016). An approach for conducting actionable research with extreme teams. Journal of Management, 20, 1–26. Bownas, D. A., & Bernardin, H. J. (1988). Critical incident technique. In S. Gael (Ed.), The job analysis handbook for business, industry and government (Vol. II) (pp. 1120–1137). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922. Hannah, S. T., Campbell, D. J., & Matthews, M. D. (2010). Advancing a research agenda for leadership in dangerous contexts. Military Psychology, 22(S1), S157–S189. Hannah, S. T., Uhl‐Bien, M., Avolio, B. J., & Cavarretta, F. L. (2009). A framework for examining leadership in extreme contexts. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 897–919. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface and deep
14
BURKE
level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Keeton, K. E., Schmidt, L. L., Slack, K. J., & Malka, A. A. (2012). The rocket science of teams. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 32–35. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon‐Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3) (pp. 253–291). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
ET AL.
(Vol. 16) Research on Managing Groups and Teams (pp. 135–153). London: Emerald Publishing. Vessey, W. B., Barrett, J. D., Mumford, M. D., Johnson, G., & Litwiller, B. (2014). Leadership of highly creative people in highly creative fields: A historiometric study of scientific leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 672–691. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta‐analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198. Weick, K., & Sutcliffe, K. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Watola, D. J., Jensen, J. M., Kim, B. H., & Botero, I. C. (2009). Developing adaptive teams: A theory of dynamic team leadership. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross‐disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 113–156). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., Priest, H. A., & Salas, E. (2005). Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14, 303–309.
Levine, A. (2014). On the edge: Leadership lessons from Mount Everest and other extreme environments. New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.
Zaccaro, S. J., & DeChurch, L. A. (2012). Leadership forms and functions in multiteam systems. In S. J. Zaccaro, M. A. Marks, & L. A. DeChurch (Eds.), Multiteam systems: An organization form for dynamic and complex environments (pp. 253–288). New York, NY: Routledge.
Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. (1980). Self‐management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theory perspective. Academy of Management Review, 5(3), 361–367. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476. McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Requirements for leadership training. Prepared for U.S. Civil Service Commission Office of Career Development, Washington, D.C. Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. (2009). The incorporation of time in team research: Past, current, and future. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross‐disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 321–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36, 5–39. Mulhearn, T., McIntosh, T., Gibson, C., Mumford, M. D., Yammarino, F. J., Connelly, S., … Vessey, B. (2016). Leadership for long‐duration space missions: A shift toward a collective approach. Acta Astronautica, 129, 466–476. 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(5), 923–942. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross‐disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 83–112). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.
C. Shawn Burke is a Professor (Research) at the Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida. Her expertise includes teams, team leadership, team adaptability, team training, and effectiveness with an emphasis on teams operating in complex environments. Her work has been funded by NASA, ARI, NSF, and ONR. Marissa L. Shuffler is an assistant professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Clemson University with over 10 years of experience conducting basic and applied research. Dr. Shuffler's areas of expertise include team and leader training and development, multiteam systems, communication, and adaptation, with an emphasis on high‐risk and complex environments. Christopher W. Wiese is an assistant professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Georgia Institute of Technology. His research investigates how events at work impact well‐being and
Salas, E., Sims, D., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a ‘Big 5’ in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555–599.
how this translates to performance outcomes. In particular, he
Simonton, D. (1998). A history of European women's work: 1700 to the present (p. 269). US: Taylor & Francis.
understand this phenomenon, Dr. Wiese conducts research at
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Qualitative and quantitative analyses of historical data. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 617–640.
seeks to understand the temporal dynamics of well‐being. To fully individual and team levels.
Suedfeld, P. (2012). 2012 behavioral health and performance standing review panel research Plan Review. Retrieved from https:// humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/reviews/BHP%20SRP% 20Research%20Plan%20Review%20(2012).pdf
How to cite this article: Burke CS, Shuffler ML, Wiese CW.
Vessey, W. B. (2014). Multiteam systems in the spaceflight context: Current and future challenges. In M. L. Shuffler, R. Rico, & E. Salas (Eds.), Pushing the boundaries: Multiteam systems in research and practice
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2290
Examining the behavioral and structural characteristics of team leadership in extreme environments. J Organ Behav. 2018;1–15.
BURKE
15
ET AL.
APPENDIX A Sample of archival sources reviewed.
Document title
Source/Author
Blogs/electronic sources Astronauts find a coolant on the space station*
http://www.universetoday.com/102046/astronauts‐find‐a‐coolant‐leak‐on‐the‐space‐station/ Atkinson
Space station loses contact with NASA mission control* http://www.space.com/19853‐space‐station‐contact‐lost‐nasa.html/ Kramer Big station can have big malfunctions*
Retrieved from http://www.space.com/8867‐big‐space‐station‐big‐malfunctions.html/ Malik
Mars crew guinea pigs suffered insomnia, lethargy
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars500‐crewexperiment‐insomnia‐health‐effects‐130116. htm/ Klotz
Spacecraft: Manned: Mir: Close calls*
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mir_close_calls.html
Luca Parmitano's blog
http://blogs.esa.int/luca‐parmitano/
RED threshold late notice conjunction threat misses ISS—crew egress
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/03/threat‐to‐iss‐crew‐soyuz/ Bergin
http://www.astrobio.net/topic/exploration/moon‐to‐mars/lessons‐from‐mars‐500/
Russia identifies cause of rocket launch failure
http://www.space.com/12779‐russian‐rocket‐failure.html/ Moskowitz
Rocket liftoff aborted a half‐second before launch
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo‐way/2012/05/19/153061648/in‐historic‐space‐mission‐ launch‐is‐only‐the‐first‐test/ Farrington
ESA's participation in Mars500*
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Mars500
Mars500 Mission Diary (Video & Text)*
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Mars500/%20Mars500_diary
Books Dragonfly: NASA and the crisis aboard the MIR*
Harper Collins/Burroughs
The worst journey in the world*
Picador/Cherry‐Garrad
Homesteading space: The Skylab story*
University of Nebraska Press/Garriott, Hitt, Kerwin
Off the planet: Surviving five perilous months aboard the space station Mir*
McGraw Hill Professional/Linenger
Shuttle‐Mir: The United States and Russia share history's highest stage*
Houston: NASA/Morgan
Team spirit: Life and leadership on one of the world's toughest yacht races*
Adlard Coles Nautical/Hall
Ocean warriors: The thrilling story of the 2001/2002 Volvo ocean race around the world*
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc./Mundle
One watch at a time: Around the world with Drum on the Whitbread race*
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc./Novak
Global challenge: Leadership lessons from “the world's toughest yacht race”*
The Book Guild Ltd./Walters, Mackie, Mackie, & Bacon
Fighting finish: The Volvo ocean race, race around the world 2001–2002
Nomad Communications/Jobson
Island of the lost: Shipwrecked at the edge of the world*
Algonquin Books/Druett
Fatal North: Adventure survival aboard USS Polaris: 1st U.S. expedition North Pole*
Signet Book/Henderson
Race for the South Pole: The expedition diaries of Scott and Amundsen*
A & C Black/Huntford
Endurance: Shackleton's incredible voyage*
McGraw‐Hill/Lansing
Shackleton's way: Leadership lessons from the great Antarctic explorer*
Penguin Putnam, Inc./Morell & Capparell
Leading at the edge: Leadership lessons from the extraordinary saga of Shackleton's Antarctic exploration*
Amacon/Perkins
Journals: Captain Scott's last expedition*
OUP Oxford/Scott & Jones
The heart of the Antarctic: Being the story of the British Antarctic expedition 1907–1909*
Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc./Shackleton
Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration*
Naval Institute Press/Stuster
Scott, Shackleton, and Amundsen: Ambition and tragedy in the Antarctic*
Thomson
Ice: Stories of survival from polar exploration*
Thunder's Mouth Press, Balliett & Fitzgerald, Inc./Willis
Shackleton's boat journey: The narrative from the Captain of the Endurance*
W & J Mackay Limited, Chatham/Worsley
*Sources actually used in the final analysis.
