Applied Psychology OPUS

The Influence of Leadership Style on Individuals’ Satisfaction on Small Teams

Angela Page Spears and Paige Alenick

In the last several decades, work tasks have become increasingly complex in order to meet the demands of the rising global market: one that is competitive and efficient (Pearce, 2004). To meet demands, teams (i.e., groups of people with assigned roles, all working towards a common goal) are led with a variety of leadership styles (Solansky, 2008). Generally, leadership has been viewed as a type of social influence reserved for an individual in power (Bolden, 2014; Jeon, Passmore, Lee, & Hunsaker, 2013), a concept now known as traditional leadership (Muethel & Hoegl, 2012; Solansky, 2008). However, newer styles of leadership, including shared leadership (i.e., when multiple people assume leadership responsibility to work towards a goal; Barnett & Weidenfeller, 2016; Muethel & Hoegl, 2013) and transformational leadership (i.e., when the leader inspires group members to execute their visions; Bolden, 2014; Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Solansky, 2008) have recently emerged to fulfill the expectations of the global market.

The shift in the conceptualization of leadership has stimulated a reevaluation of team outcomes (Solansky, 2008), specifically to determine if different leadership styles are related to individual satisfaction (Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Hoffmann & Loughead, 2015; Serban & Roberts, 2016). Research suggests that individual workplace satisfaction is the strongest predictor of employee retention rates (Kim, 2002), and is linked to improved mental health outcomes and higher productivity, or success in work tasks (Drescher & Garbers, 2016). Past literature has conceptualized individual satisfaction to be primarily composed of two distinct parts: team satisfaction (i.e., an individual’s opinion of their team) and task satisfaction (i.e., an individual’s outlook on their work; Serban & Roberts, 2016). Although individual satisfaction has been studied primarily in large organizations (Barnett & Weidenfeller, 2016; Solansky, 2008), recent literature suggests that smaller teams may experience greater individual satisfaction compared to larger teams because of an increased level of communication between team members (Ogungbamila, Ogungbamila, & Adetula, 2010). Therefore, this paper explored the relation between leadership styles and individual satisfaction on small teams.

Leadership Styles

Traditional leadership. Under traditional leadership, there is one person in command who develops a group’s strategy and directs the behaviors of its members (Pearce, 2004). Traditional leaders are chosen for a leadership position because they possess all of the knowledge, discipline and determination needed to complete a task (Stein & Allcorn, 2014). As a result of their task-oriented focus, traditional leaders use their social influence to complete work, rather than to foster relationships between team members (Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Kim, 2002; Solansky, 2008).

Despite the lack of emphasis placed on team relationships, studies suggest that traditional leadership helps to organize a team to complete a specific objective or goal (Pearce, 2004). Thus, it remains an effective leadership style in the evolving global market because it enables efficient decision-making (Amason & Sapienza, 1997). Nevertheless, due to the increasing complexity of tasks in the workplace, teams controlled by one person may be less productive, as it is difficult for one person to be familiar with all of the information needed to complete all aspects of multifaceted tasks (Pearce, 2004; Solansky, 2008). Due to modern day market demands in a global economy, some studies suggest that team members might become dissatisfied with traditional leadership, prompting the rise of other leadership styles (Pearce, 2004).

Shared leadership. In contrast to traditional leadership, under shared leadership, team members allocate tasks amongst themselves (Muethel & Hogel, 2013; Pearce, 2004; Solansky, 2008). Each team member can work independently or collaboratively as opposed to relying on one person to direct them (Drescher & Garbers, 2016). Therefore, each member of the team is both a team member and a leader (Pearce, 2004). Specifically, if a team member is an expert in a topic they will take the lead, but when working on other projects this same member may have more of a background role (Muethel & Hogel, 2013).

Transformational leadership. A leadership style consistently related to individual satisfaction is transformational leadership (Chrobot-Mason, Gerbasi, & Cullen-Lester, 2016). A transformational leader fosters reciprocal communication and relationships amongst team members to develop collaborative goals and achieve a group identity. For example, transformational leaders promote a ‘we over me’ mentality, which encourage interactions with other teams within the larger organization (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016). The ensuing result is that team members within a small group understand their role in the overall organizational strategy and derive satisfaction from knowing that their contributions are beneficial to the betterment of the entire institution (Cha, Kim, Lee, & Bachrach, 2015; Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016). The promotion of a group identity by a successful transformational leader increases individual satisfaction because the team members have adopted a shared vision and goal (Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Nielsen, Yarker, Randall, & Munir, 2008). Specifically, research suggests that team members are more motivated if they feel their work is meaningful (Jeon et al., 2013). Therefore, the encouragement and inspiration provided by transformational leaders can function to encourage characteristics often related to individual satisfaction (e.g., dedication to the team and emotional commitment amongst members; Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Pearce, 2004; Stein & Allcorn, 2014). However, when team members fail to adopt a group mentality and instead identify as an employee looking out for him or herself, they do not derive the benefits related to individual satisfaction (Nielsen et al., 2008).

Leadership and Satisfaction in Teams

Regardless of leadership style, the size of a team is an important contributing factor to individual satisfaction (Aubé, Rousseau, & Tremblay, 2011). Specifically, research suggests that smaller teams have greater individual satisfaction (Aubé et al., 2011; Ogungbamila et al., 2010). Larger teams find it harder to agree on solutions because they encompass a greater number of personal opinions. Disagreement over whose opinion dominates might lead to poor communication or conflict (Amason & Sapienza, 1997), as well as counterproductive behaviors, such as aggression, or not working with team members due to distrust (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Aubé et al., 2011). Consequently, all of these factors may decrease individual satisfaction on large teams (Aubé et al., 2011).

Though research suggests that there are differences in workplace satisfaction between individuals on large and small teams, the majority of the research on workplace satisfaction has focused on large teams (Hoffman & Loughead, 2015; Pearce, 2004). One possible explanation for the lack of research conducted on smaller teams may be because researchers have not agreed on the number of members that constitutes a small team. One study suggests a small team is made up of no more than 12 people (Ogungbamila et al., 2010), whereas other research indicates that a small team is made up of two people (Aubé et al., 2011). Because there is no consensus on the number of individuals that comprise a small team, studies suggest that a small team can be operationalized as whether or not the team members themselves consider the team to be small (Aubé et al., 2011). Because small teams are emerging as popular tools to promote organizational effectiveness (Carmel & Bird, 1997; Ogungbamila et al., 2010), it is important to better understand leadership and satisfaction on smaller teams. As such, this paper addressed the following research questions: 1) What leadership styles are used in small teams?; and 2) How are leadership styles related to individual satisfaction on small teams?

METHOD Participants

Including the two researchers, the sample for this study consisted of seven members of seven different small research teams at New York University (one member from each team). All participants were between 21 and 22 years of age and had served on their research team for at least two semesters. Only one participant was male.

Procedure

As members of research teams themselves, the researchers had become intimately familiar the individuals who work on their teams, and thus had a deep understanding of how their specific teams were led. However, because they did not wish to have their supervisors or fellow team members change their leadership behaviors in any way, the researchers chose to make covert observations while working in their labs.

Field notes. Data for this study was collected in two ways creating a total of 37 field notes. First, the two researchers wrote a total of 28 field notes that were collected over the course of six months (i.e., two semesters). When writing their field notes, the researchers made careful observations of the physical environment (e.g., the rooms where they had lab meetings), the tasks they performed, and their feelings about those tasks. The researchers were careful to take notes of events on their teams as they occurred and to write their field notes a day or two after making their observations.

It is important to note that during the first semester on their research teams, the researchers’ field notes were written without any particular focus. They wrote about their experiences on their teams and their reactions to them. However, during the second semester, the researchers’ field notes focused on their interactions with their team members and supervisors, as well as their feelings about their teams and tasks. In order to account for the bias of the researchers’ field notes, field notes from a member of another team were collected. Nine total entries were written over a three-month period (i.e., one semester).

Survey. The second data collection method involved the creation of a seven question, open-form survey on Surveymonkey (see Appendix A). The survey was sent by e-mail to four research team members who completed it within a week. The team members who completed the survey were asked to recall experiences that occurred at their field sites at any time. The researchers coded the completed survey answers. In order to establish reliability, 20% of the data was coded separately and compared. Inter-rater reliability was 80%.

Coding

Keywords-in-Context. The first method of coding that the researchers utilized was Keywords-in- Context. Using this method, the researchers identified words of interest and their significance by analyzing the context in which they were used. This type of coding allowed the researchers to discern patterns in participants’ speech (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). All words relating to leadership, as well as team and task satisfaction were coded (see Appendix B for manual). These codes were decided posteriori based on the data analyzed during reliability coding. The interpretation code for the keywords was decided apriori based on the constructs of interest. The interpretation codes included traditional leadership, shared leadership, transformational leadership, task satisfaction, task dissatisfaction, team satisfaction, and team dissatisfaction.

A code was interpreted as traditional leadership if the sentence described a supervisor (or synonym) who told another what to do or gave direction to someone named as inferior (e.g., someone who was new to the team). A code was interpreted as shared leadership if the individual took initiative, was not directly told what to do, or if someone without a position of authority asked for something from someone of equal or more authority. An interaction was coded as transformational leadership if the individual talked about inspiration, if the team goals were discussed, or if there was any explicit mention of the team. A reaction was interpreted as task (dis)satisfaction if an individual spoke specifically about their feelings related to their work. Finally, a response was interpreted as team (dis)satisfaction if a member spoke about their feelings related to their team members, supervisor or general work environment (see Appendix B for more detailed coding instructions).

Classical Content Analysis. The researchers also used Classical Content Analysis, which involved counting the number of times an interpretation code appeared. This was utilized to understand the styles of leadership that may have been most prevalent, and how frequently team members experienced satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). Further, this style of coding revealed the words most commonly associated with a particular leadership style.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This study aimed to explore the relation between leadership styles and individual satisfaction (i.e., task satisfaction and team satisfaction) on small teams. Specifically, the three styles of leadership coded for were: traditional, shared and transformational. From the 41 transcripts collected for this study, traditional leadership was coded a total of 86 times (47%), shared leadership was coded 81 times (45%) and transformational leadership was coded 15 times (8%). These findings are reflective of previous literature, which suggests that transformational leadership, though beneficial, is not a commonly used style of leadership (Nielsen et al., 2008) and that traditional leadership and shared leadership are popular styles of leadership today (Barnett & Weidenfeller, 2016; Pearce, 2004).

Furthermore, task satisfaction was coded a total of 60 times (40%), team satisfaction was coded 40 times (27%), task dissatisfaction was coded 32 times (22%) and team dissatisfaction was coded 17 times (11%). These findings also support those of prior research, which demonstrates that members of smaller teams are generally satisfied (Aubé et al., 2011; Ogungbamila et al., 2010).

Traditional leadership. Some of the words that were often used to describe traditional leadership were “supervisor” (35%), “assign(ed)” (10%), “told” (6%), “hierarchy” (2%), “expect(ed)” (2%), and “power” (1%). Generally, when traditional leadership was coded in the data, it was common for individuals to speak about their experiences of task and team satisfaction together. Research suggests that this may be because, under traditional leadership, team members interact most with each other when they are being assigned a task (Drescher & Garbers, 2016; Kim, 2002; Solansky, 2008).

An example of an instance where traditional leadership was coded is “I was assigned to do edit translations this week for health insurance access surveys by the health team at CACF, which is not my usual department.” The assignment of tasks by one individual represented a hierarchical team structure, a key characteristic of traditional leadership (Pearce, 2004). That same participant noted “I felt nervous about my ability to translate them because these forms will be in use by real survey participants, and a meaningful difference in wording could give them misinformation.” ‘Nervous’ was coded for the individual’s dissatisfaction with the task. Specifically, in reviewing the context, the individual was nervous about their ability to translate the forms. However, in regards to this task, the participant also noted “it reassured me to know that I am the most qualified person for the job and that [the supervisors] will likely take that into consideration, the fact that I am only an intern, when going over the forms again,” indicating their satisfaction that the team recognized their ability to do a significant task despite their intern status.

The findings of this study are inconsistent with prior research on team satisfaction, but are in line with research on task satisfaction. Specifically, research shows that team members of organizations led by traditional leaders are generally hired for the purpose of completing specific tasks. Therefore, members are less satisfied with their teams when they are assigned to complete tasks outside of their limited responsibilities, as well as being dissatisfied with the task itself because they did not have a say in the work that they were assigned to carry out (Evans & Davis, 2005).

Shared leadership. Some words often used to describe shared leadership were “together” (14%), “contribute” (7%), “collaborative” (5%), and “feedback” (4%). Generally, when coding for shared leadership in relation to task and team satisfaction, it was common for individuals to speak about their experiences of task satisfaction and team satisfaction separately. This is in line with past research, as teams using shared leadership often have the ability to work on their tasks autonomously (i.e., without being assigned), and also have more opportunities to interact with their teams separate from their task (e.g., in group discussions; Drescher & Garbers, 2016).

When shared leadership was coded, it was often related to task satisfaction. For example, “the Field Site Agreement provided that I would be able to work on projects by myself in addition to collaborating with others, which was also correct. I worked on literature review assignments both independently as well as with Mary and John.” This excerpt was coded for shared leadership because of the word ‘collaborating.’ The context of the word ‘collaborating’ suggested that the team member was working with others, as well as doing projects individually, another basic aspect of shared leadership (Drescher & Garbers, 2016). In this example, the use of shared leadership was related to task satisfaction, as the team member indicated, “I am so grateful for this opportunity, and look forward to continuing my work on Mary’s team over the summer and into next semester.” This context suggests the individual was experiencing task satisfaction. Specifically, the participant was grateful for the opportunity to participate in this work, and looked forward to working on these tasks in the future. Overall, this is consistent with previous literature, as team members exposed to shared leadership tactics often had more task satisfaction because they are able to participate in the execution of all aspects of a task (Ogungbamila et al., 2010).

Data also revealed that shared leadership was positively related to team satisfaction. For example, “I felt a sense of accomplishment as a participant in this group discussion because we came together as a team and drew on the collective knowledge for which we worked so hard all semester.” The word ‘together’ was coded for shared leadership because the coming together and sharing of knowledge is a basic element of shared leadership (Pearce, 2004). Furthermore, this example suggested that the individual was satisfied, as they wrote they felt accomplished. This sense of accomplishment is directly related to coming together as a team. This is consistent with literature concerning shared leadership and satisfaction, which suggests that teams using shared leadership are often satisfied because individuals feel as though they played an important role in helping to reach the outcome the team is striving to achieve, and feel important to the success of the team (Serban & Roberts, 2016).

Transformational leadership. Some words used to describe transformational leadership included “inspire” (20%), “goal” (27%), and “benefit” (33%). When coding for transformational leadership, individuals also spoke about the experiences of task and team satisfaction separately. This is consistent with prior research, as teams using transformational leadership focus on building relationships and fostering a group identity, separate and apart from the emphasis placed on completing tasks (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016). One example of an instance where transformational leadership was coded was, “after the training, I feel inspired and excited about doing these interviews in China this summer!” This was coded for transformational leadership because it used the word ‘inspire,’ which suggested that the participant felt inspired from the work of their team. Research suggests that inspiration of team members is a main tenant of transformational leadership (Pearce, 2004). Additionally, the word ‘excited’ was coded as task satisfaction, because the context suggested that the team member was excited for future work. This is consistent with prior literature, which suggests that teams using transformational leadership often have high task satisfaction, as transformational leaders emphasize that the work done by the team is meaningful (Jeon et al., 2013).

The data also suggested that transformational leadership was positively related to team satisfaction. For example, a participant noted, “I was very happy that my goals were important to Tom.” This was coded for transformational leadership because of the word ‘goal.’ In context, ‘goal’ is being used to explain the individual’s aims for the semester. This sentence was also coded for team satisfaction because the individual notes that they were ‘happy.’ In context, this happiness was related to the acknowledgment of the importance of the individual’s goals to another team member. These findings are consistent with past literature, which suggests that transformational leadership often focuses on understanding an individual team member’s goals so that the team can have a shared vision or set of goals. Thus, shared goals increase commitment to, and satisfaction with, the team (Chiok Foong Loke, 2001; Nielsen et al., 2008; Pearce, 2004).

CONCLUSION

Results from this study demonstrate that leadership style is related to individual satisfaction on small teams. Specifically, all leadership styles (i.e., traditional, shared, and transformational) elicited team satisfaction. Because all three leadership styles examined involved acknowledgment of individual team members, it logically followed that all team members in this study experienced team satisfaction. These findings are consistent with those of prior research, which postulate that team satisfaction is related to the team’s acknowledgment of the individual’s work on it (Aubé et al., 2011). Further, since all of the teams examined were small, the findings on team satisfaction were consistent with prior research, which suggests that smaller teams have greater individual satisfaction (Aubé et al., 2011; Ogungbamila et al., 2010).

This study also demonstrated that traditional leadership was the only style negatively associated with task satisfaction. While team members exposed to traditional leadership were not satisfied with their tasks, the results of this study indicated that individuals experienced task satisfaction when they were exposed to shared and transformational leadership tactics. Research suggests this may be because team members are more satisfied with their tasks when they are able to work with other members of the team, as well as get and give feedback on ideas for how to complete the tasks in the most effective manner (Cha et al., 2015).

This study had several limitations. As with many qualitative studies, the sample size used for this study was small. A larger and more diverse sample size may have helped to get a better understanding of leadership and satisfaction in order to reach conclusions that could be generalized to settings outside of research teams. Second, because survey participants were asked to recall experiences from any point in time on their teams, it is possible that the passage of time diminished their recollection of their early experiences. Finally, only one member of each small team was sampled for this study. Future research should survey several members of the same team to compare and contrast different experiences on that team, and get a better sense of the overall satisfaction amongst members with the leadership style used.

Despite these limitations, the results of this study have important implications. First, while current theories surrounding leadership styles suggest each style is practiced on its own, the results of this study suggested that while this is often the case, sometimes multiple leadership styles can be present on the same team. Specifically, one individual expressed in their field notes “at Nanjing Families, I am expected to occasionally contribute ideas about possible research topics but the meetings are primarily run by Dr. Brown and the PhD student Maria.” The idea that meetings are primarily run by two members of the team is an example of traditional leadership (Stein & Allcorn, 2014). However, the fact that this individual was expected to contribute ideas is an aspect of shared leadership (Drescher & Garbers, 2016). Overall, the idea that multiple styles of leadership can be used on a team is not reflected in the literature, and theories surrounding leadership should be expanded to reflect this possibility.

Further, future research should aim to understand how multiple leadership styles could be present on a single team and subsequently influence satisfaction. Finally, this study has implications for practice, as its findings suggest that teams under shared and transformational leadership styles seemed to have the most instances of task and team satisfaction. Therefore, trainings could be developed to teach leaders how to implement shared and transformational leadership tactics. Implementing these tactics may enhance the quality of individuals’ experiences on small teams and subsequently increase team satisfaction.