Module 6

Slide 2
Last week we focused on how leader’s values shape how they assess
associate behaviour. This week we are going to move from values based
behaviours or traits to adaptive qualities of leadership or attributes.
We often consider our values as ‘right or wrong’ so to begin with we will
look at the study of ethics and how social expectations sometimes align or
disagree with what we interpret as right or wrong individually…known as
our own morals.
Social expectations or ‘norms’ relate to the concepts of leadership in that
we can attribute certain types of behaviour as leadership qualities. We call
these leadership styles ‘Normative’ in that we look for and expect certain
characteristics or attribute certain behaviours to what we expect our
leaders to act like. Each leadership style below can be categorized by the
attributes they possess.
We will define and look at examples for:
1. Authentic Leadership
2. Servant Leadership
3. Transformational Leadership
4. Responsible Leadership which will lead us into a more specific
discussion on ethics & morality.
Finally we will look at the social context of awareness and how we
perceive our own behaviours and those around us for when and how to
adapt our behaviours. Specifically the concept of “Emotional Intelligence”
and how it differs from how we traditionally measure intelligence and why
that matters in terms of leadership.

Slide3
Let’s start by looking at the study of ethics…
There is something interesting that the Greek word responsible for ethics
doesn’t include ‘right, morality or values’ in it’s roots. In fact the thought
of ethical decision making for Aristotle and other philosophers of his time
was seen as a way of life or a disposition that people possess.
When we look at ethics today we see that there is more to it. In fact we
start to see ‘attributes’ of ethical behaviour that follow the ‘normative’
rules we have visited so far.
The figure on the right shows how the concept of ethics is composed of
rules, values and visible behaviours. These concepts as we have already
seen are the foundation for being able to further research concepts and
principles that can help us understand why human behaviour is and has
been concerned with making the ‘right’ choices in society.

Slide 4
So how are ethics are seen for the most part? A good way to think about
what is ethical is to look to the study of ethics…let’s begin.
Over the next few slides we will look at definitions and examples of:
1. Consequentialism: Egoism & Utilitarianism
2. Deontological: People have a duty to society to make ethical choices
 3. Virtue Ethics: The oldest model focused on human character
As you can see we are going back quite a ways in history to explain
ethical behaviour. The philosophy & explanations from the examples
above still contain the foundation of studying ethics and explaining not
only ethics but morality as well (more on that a little later).
The three links from the University of Texas in the slide contain videos
and explanations of the different models. Now would be a good time to
review them or look at them with each corresponding slide going forward:
Links:
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/virtue-ethics

Slide 5
Consequentialism: the class of normative ethical theories holding that
the consequences of one’s actions are the basis for any judgment about
the rightness or wrongness of those actions. From a consequentialist
standpoint, a morally right act is one that will produce a good outcome, or
create a consequence to the actor.
Many books on how to parent children are based upon consequences of
the child’s behaviour and have their foundation in the thought that you
should be accountable to your own actions.
However the consequences aren’t always those of the actor or the
perpetrator of the behaviour being assessed. Consequences could be to
groups of individuals or even to society as a whole.
For example, when officer Derek Chauvin was charged with the murder of
George Floyd in Minnesota, we saw individual consequences to Chauvin,
group consequences to the other police officers involved & international
consequences based on the protests held not only in the US but in
countries around the world. We can even consider future consequences
based on competing issues such as how will the gatherings impact the
already existing coronavirus pandemic? Just this week the trial for Chauvin
has begun and security is a concern for the public in general
Individual consequences are called ‘Egoisms’ and as you can see in the
above diagram are consequences to my actions (assuming the diagram is
concerned with my decision making).
As we move to groups you see a movement from egoism to ‘Group
Consequentialism’ which is to say that this impacts some members of who
I am associated with. On the smaller group size you can think of family or
friends and in the case of the Floyd murder you could look at the USA as
having different consequences than individuals but still not unanimous.
Utilitarianism is the largest sector of Consequentialism. It assume the
consequences at least impact all of humanity and in the case of the
diagram, sentient beings (beings with consciousness) which accounts for
different religious philosophies such as Buddhism.
Consequentialism Link:
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism

Slide 6
Deontological Definition: is the normative ethical theory that the morality
of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong
under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the
action.
Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher during what was knows as the
‘Age of Enlightenment’. During this era Kant was a leading proponent that
we all are governed by a sense of rules we needed to adhere to. Therefore
ethical decision making was our duty and based on individual and group
‘rights’.
Deontological principles of ethics define rights in one of 3 ways;
1. Negative & Positive Rights: See the slide for definitions
i) Negative Right Examples: the right to live, to be free, freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, freedom fr
om violence, freedom from slavery, and property rights.
ii) Positive Right Examples: the rights to free schooling, free healthcare, a
job, and a minimum wage.
https://www.liberalistene.org/knowledge/positive-and-
negative-rights/
2. Social Contract: can be explicit, such as laws, or implicit, such as
raising one's hand in class to
speak. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an example of
a social contract.
https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-
contract-theory
3. Social Justice: the view that everyone deserves equal economic,
political and social rights and opportunities. Equal human rights is
an example. The Black Lives Matter are protesting on the grounds
that not everyone has equal rights to there is no social justice.
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-
social-justice-issues
Social Justice is further broken down into 3 categories which define the
type of justice and how it relates to groups and individuals.
a) Distributive Justice: Equal work should provide individuals with an
equal outcome in terms of goods acquired or the ability to acquire goods.
b) Retributive Justice: the punishment be proportionate and dispensed at
the same level as the crime.
c) Compensatory Justice: giving appropriate compensation to those who
suffered discrimination.
Link: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/deontology

Slide 7
Virtue Ethics Definition: broad term for theories that emphasize the role of
character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one's
duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences.
Responsible Leadership is an example of virtue ethics we discussed as a
Normative Theory of Attributes based upon the leader possessing the
right characters and demonstrating them to subordinates.
Although Virtue Ethics assume the characters are inherent in individuals
the Responsible Leadership premise state there are 5 elements to
consider or ‘rules’ that make up a virtuous character.
They are:
1. Stakeholder Inclusion
2. Emotion & intuition
3. Mission & Purpose
4. Technology & Innovation
5. Intellect & Insight
Here is a link that further explains the 5 elements and why they are
important:
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/blogs/accenture-research/five-things-
every-company-needs-for-responsible-leadership
.As you can see to be a responsible leader takes a great effort. In fact
most contemporary theories of responsible leadership require
organizations to take charge and create policies and practices that
promote doing the right thing thus giving support to leadership at all
levels to make responsible decisions based on all 5 elements.
Virtua Ethics Link: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/virtue-
ethics

Slide 9
So let’s look at how we can see how ethics relates to leadership in
organizations.
The figure on the right of the slide sets out to explain consistencies or
attributes of how subordinates view ethical leadership including:
1. Respect Others
2. Serves Others
3. Shows Justice
4. Manifests Honesty
5. Builds Community
These attributes should look familiar as they are present in many of the
personal based models we have looked at in previous modules. This
overriding principle of ethical attributes are noticed by employees and
have an impact on performance (more to come…).
However unethical decision making is also noticed and not uncommon in
organizations. Look at the stats in the slide. As you can see ethics can be
seen as a hierarchy. It is more common to deviate from personal ethical
standards than established ethical rules such as breaking the law.
So you can see the subjectivity of ethics tends to increase on the
individual basis and a more universal approach is present when the rules
are formalized for larger groups.
So how does this help you learn to be better leaders?

Slide 10
So let’s make some clear distinctions to how attributes differ from what
we know as traits & values.
Well traits & values are the internal, consistent behaviour based on two
things.
 1. How the individual perceives the world through the collection of
mental models & systems thinking
2. The beliefs about what the individual believes as ‘right’ and looks
for in others
So how does that differ from attributes:
Well if you look at the definition attributes introduce the word ‘quality’ and
quality is something that we can measure. Once we assess the quality of
an individual attribute we can start to identify and universally categorize
attributes that we all see as acceptable as a good example or ‘norm’ of
what is being defined.
Yes there is some subjectivity involved but you can dismiss attributes that
are marginal and focus on strongly agreed upon qualities. When a leader
demonstrates the universally accepted attributes we say they are
‘competent’. This is why you will often see ‘competency’ on job postings
or job descriptions as they assume that the person in that position
possesses those qualities.
So back to norms…norms are defined as, something typical or normal
(norms are short form for this). Since norms are agreed upon by the
majority of individuals they make a good starting point for modelling and
identifying normal leadership attributes (or qualities & competencies).
So that’s the framework in which we will look at leadership styles this
week: Normative Theories

Slide 11
What is the relationship between ethical leadership & associate
performance?
Researchers (Thiel, Hardy, Peterson, Welsh, & Bonner, 2018) explored the
above questions and found the answer lies in how associates perceive
leadership behaviour.
Specifically the behavioural leader model we have already seen: Leader-
Member Exchange (LMX).
LMX describes the quality of the relationship between the leader and
follower. High Quality Relationships increase the follower’s sense of
trust and obligation to meet expectations. In other words, ethical leaders
treat followers in a moral and respectful way, which makes for a better
quality relationship, and then employees react with more positive work
behavior.
THE IMPACT OF SPAN OF CONTROL
In order for ethical leaders to develop strong relationships with followers,
they need opportunities to interact with them individually, demonstrate
accountability and honesty, and reciprocate good behaviors. This
becomes much more difficult to do when leaders have many followers.
Researchers call this a wide span of control, meaning they have
“control” over a large number of employees. A leader only has so much
time in the day, so the more employees a leader is responsible for, the
less time there is for building individual relationships.
The researchers found that when leader span of control was high, the
positive effect of ethical leadership on leader-member exchange was
diminished. This can lead to consequences for follower performance down
the line. However, when span of control was lower, ethical leadership did
have a positive influence on leader-member exchange, which leads to
those beneficial employee outcomes.
This has specific implications for supervisory positions or front line
managers as they are more likely to have individual relationships and
therefore demonstrate either positive or negative ethical choices.

Slide 12
LMX doesn’t specifically explain how employees can improve
performance, just that it happens. So let’s look at the concept of
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour or OCB.
The concept of OCB is that we all have values that we possess outside of
the workplace. These values may be in line with what the organization
promotes or could be contrary. An example of an OCB could be a ‘good
work ethic’. Perhaps this ethic or value was modelled by your parents or
someone you learned from when you were younger and more
impressionable, perhaps a teacher or coach. For some reason you were
rewarded and created a mental model that promotes if you work hard you
will be rewarded.
If you take that behaviour to work with you, your manager or supervisor
may misinterpret your hard work with something they had done to inspire
you whereas you simply value hard work regardless.
So how does this relate to ethics? Well, similar to the concept of hard work
we also have internal values as we have discussed in Module 5. Let’s say
these values are tied to the concepts of Responsible Leadership. So now
you can see that you have the ability to blend your mental models into
systems thinking. If your company or boss promotes ethics that resonate
with you, this could trigger your OCB of hard work.
Recent research has shown just that, there is a relationship with
employees seeing and appreciating ethical decisions and this in turn
motivates OCB’s which aren’t present in unethical organizations. This
appreciation turns into the employees feeling indebted to either the
company or their direct supervisors to ‘try harder’.
Now let’s think of how a leader with a high EQ would be aware of this
behaviour and create strategies or contingencies that not only include
contemporary models of situational task driven behaviours but also
include how being just and fair also come into play. Therefore even if
individual ethics are subjective, a good emotionally intelligent,
situationally competent leader can adapt to drive individual performance.
This is the cross functionality of looking at different leadership styles and
transforming them to use whatever information you can assess from your
teams to increase performance. This is the thought in which to think about
how to use transformative rules in normative leadership styles and adapt
them to the specific behavioural and contingency models that help
improve associate performance based timely feedback.

Slide 13
So if acting ethically improves the likelihood of Organizational Citizenship
Behaviours (OCB’s) it only makes sense that all levels of leadership
including managers should act ethically…
As it turns out however, they often don’t. Pressures to perform or not
aligning personal values with those of the organization can result in
unethical and sometimes even illegal behaviour. In fact at times
surrounding yourself with people who think like yourself can lead to
unethical consequences. For example if you look to the slide above people
will often be complicit in unethical behaviour not because they see it as
just or moral but instead are afraid of both seen and unseen
consequences.
1. Groupthink: when group cohesiveness & harmony are more
important than saying anything. In groupthink the individual doesn’t
consider the consequences or believe the group’s decision may be
harmful.
2. Abilene Paradox: similar to groupthink, the Abilene Paradox is based
on a story in the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwFUkm-p404
The difference between groupthink and the Abilene Paradox is that none
of the members consider the decision of travelling to Abilene a good idea.
Instead they simply believe they are acting in the best interest of others
instead of saying what each person desires or really thinks.
Here are links for specific examples of both groupthink & the Abiene
Paradox
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-groupthink.html
https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-abilene-paradox-definition-
examples.html
How to avoid groupthink:
1. Plan for it
2. Encourage debate
3. Look for different personalities
4. Don’t look for desired outcomes but acknowledge bias (attribution
error)
5. Ask others, get novel opinions from other departments
6. Don’t decide too quickly
Link: https://www.quickbase.com/blog/6-ways-to-avoid-groupthink

Slide 14
So how do the concepts of ethics relate to this week’s topic of Responsible
Leadership?
Let’s start by taking another look at Attribution Theory, Just to reiterate
why it is important that people in leadership positions recognize the need
to adapt their behaviour.
Based on the theory that we make perceptual errors, leaders can’t rely on
what they see from their associates as a reliable measure of performance.
We see this in the figure on the left above where leaders can err in
attributing the behaviours of subordinates as either internal vs external or
the behaviours as being stable or unstable (happen all the time or are
unique to the state).
To confound this even further, subordinates do exactly the same thing
when assessing whether or not leader behaviours are legitimate or not.
For example a leader may see a situation differently and therefore act
differently but the subordinate ‘perceives’ the environment as the same
so now thinks their boss is inconsistent.
Here is a quick link that shows that subordinates succumb to the same
perceptual errors (Fundamental Attribution Errors) that people in a
leadership position do:
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmrrEL9e1U8
So how can a leader know when to use the appropriate styles or
behaviours? Well we need to start to think about creating some rules
about the environment and get to know about your subordinates to
eliminate making perceptual errors.
The picture on the right shows how followers conceptualize leadership
behaviours in general. For leaders to increase the likelihood of being
perceived properly they need to focus on what the subordinate sees just
as much as what they perceive based on their own values and mental
models.
The good news is a manager, supervisor or anyone who is attempting to
lead doesn’t need to be perfect. This is good news because we don’t have
perfect information when making decisions. They do however need to
consider their position and what is being conveyed and at least convey an
attempt to ensure their actions are: noticed by the subordinate, are
considered worthwhile by the subordinate, are relevant to what the
subordinate cares about and demonstrate that the leader is committed to
their actions. In other words will follow up to ensure what they are
communicating will get done.
The leader needs to account for all four when making decisions but
fortunately only really need two concepts to resonate with their teams.
Remember each team member is also an individual and has their own
perceptions about what they are seeing and will make their own
assumptions so if the leader tries to control for each, they have created a
good contingency based on ‘rules’ that subordinates follow. Subordinates
care about connecting the leader’s behaviour to one of: the issue being
addressed, the position the leader has (manager or supervisor may be
seen differently by different associates as an example), the effort being
put forward and the quality of the idea.
What we are seeing here is the introduction to leaders and subordinates
looking for shared and visible examples or Attributes that can be
universally adopted by all.

Slide 15
But here we go again, simply type in ‘important leadership’ attributes and
you will see some consistency but you will also see 100’s if not 1000’s of
sites all claiming which attribute is more important than others.
For example in the figure on the left you see a global perspective which
quantifies what specific qualities good managers have across 5
dimensions (Similar in what the Big 5 Personality test does).
In fact here is a link to a video that explains this model further:
https://hbr.org/2016/03/the-most-important-leadership-competencies-
according-to-leaders-around-the-world
It looks reasonable to me when I watch the video but what about you? Is
there an arrogance assuming that we can quantify the qualities globally?
What if you perceive cultural differences as more important than me? If I
am your leader I can err on transferring my opinions on to you.
Then there is the figure on the right which uses a common sense
approach to hi-level leadership qualities or ‘skills’. This is based on looking
at how effective managers, supervisors or people in authority act. In the
opinion of ‘skills you need.com’ you must master or at least at some level
possess the qualities outlined above.
Is it that easy just be good at 6 things and you will be ‘good’. What is
good, how do you measure it? Again subjective. Don’t get me wrong, we
have things to learn from these approaches but are we really defining
accurate qualities and if so how do we relate those qualities to what we
value and believe?

Slide 16
Now that we have revisited how we attribute behaviours and what
leadership behaviours look like, let’s go back and discuss the concept of
‘norms’ or what we expect our leaders to look like
Norms are defined as, something typical or normal (norms are short form
for this). Since norms are agreed upon by the majority of individuals they
make a good starting point for modelling and identifying normal
leadership attributes (or qualities & competencies).
So that’s the framework in which we will look at leadership styles this
week: Normative Theories
Normative Leadership Theories. - Tell leaders how they should act. -
Built on moral principles or norms but unlike general ethical perspectives,
they are specifically address leader behavior. In other words each
individual normative theory bases good leadership on specific rules or
beliefs.
So let’s look at them individually…

Slide 17
Let’s start with Authentic Leadership
Definition: Authentic leadership is an approach to leadership that
emphasizes building the leader's legitimacy through honest relationships
with followers which value their input and are built on an ethical
foundation
1. Authentic leaders are self-aware and genuine. Authentic
leaders are self-actualized individuals who are aware of their
strengths, their limitations, and their emotions. They also show their
real selves to their followers. They do not act one way in private and
another in public; they don’t hide their mistakes or weaknesses out
of fear of looking weak. They also realize that being self-actualized
is an endless journey, never complete.
2. Authentic leaders are mission driven and focused on results.
They are able to put the mission and the goals of the organization ahead
of their own self-interest. They do the job in pursuit of results, not for their
own power, money or ego.(Kruse, 2013)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2013/05/12/what-is-authentic-
leadership/#402308fdef77

What we are saying here is that you can’t fake leadership. If you do you
will be seen as phoney or not believable. However if you are genuine in
your approach, subordinates will see you as a leader. But can you be
genuine without linking values? That is where the ethical or moral traits
come into normative theories and authentic leadership is no different. If
you look at the figure on the right it outlines why the leader is seen as
authentic. Not only are they expressing their true selves but they have
principles and values that resonate with most people.
Example: A leader promotes openly that they respect everyone’s time and
value that ‘everyone is busy’, then shows up late for a meeting or even
worse consistently shows up late. That is NOT promoting Authentic
Leadership. If I showed up late for class and wasn’t prepared you would
challenge Conestoga’s decision to believe I had the appropriate
competency to teach this class.

Slide 18
So if being authentic is one set of rules or norms let’s consider Service as
another.
Servant Leadership Definition:
“The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that
one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to
aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader
first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or
to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are
two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are
part of the infinite variety of human nature. (Greenleaf, 1970)
You will notice that before you can be a leader, you need to possess the
belief or value of service. This promotes a paradigm shift or a different
way of thinking about how we traditionally view power. In Servant
Leadership power is something to share and not something to wield.
You can see in the figure on the right how Traditional Leadership is often
contrary to how leaders and subordinates view service.
Since service comes first, there is a progression or process of attaining the
level of a Servant Leader

Slide 19
And here is the process…let’s dissect this diagram.
First of all you can see that the rules or norms of becoming a servant are
observable and therefore adaptable and teachable. There are 4 distinct
stages on moving from the traditional to the servant view.
The orange circles clearly label each stage or ‘leadership type’ in the
evolution of becoming service minded.
Stage 1: Authoritarian, which is what was defined as traditional in the last
slide
Stage 2: Participative, which is similar to what we saw with Vroom Jago in
that it includes other’s opinions and feelings
Stage 3: Stewardship, which is a belief that leaders are deeply
accountable to others as well as to the organization, without trying to
control others, define meaning and purpose for others, or take care of
others
Stage 4: Servant as defined in the last slide
You also notice the arrow at the bottom over the blue circles. This
indicates a movement away from being concerned with yourself to
creating ‘whole’ employees. The idea here is that the employee has the
power to make decisions and the leader is there to remove obstacles and
serve the needs of the employee.
As for most theories there are advantages:
i) Employee loyalty rates high as does motivation as employees feel
engaged
ii) Can lead to higher productivity and a cohesive culture
Disadvantages:
i) Taks a lot of trust in not only the leader but the organization to
support. Also remember most managers & supervisors have bosses
too and they may see you as week if they prescribe to traditional
methods
ii) Takes time to work through the steps
iii) Associates could take advantage if goals are not clearly defined and
there is no accountability
Although you can see how certain aspects of Servant Leadership would be
considered ‘good’ qualities, depending on the viewer it could also be seen
as unusual and perhaps even ‘weak’. To note though true Servant
Leadership is not defined as those who are afraid of conflict but instead
believe in modelling the right behaviour to drive happy and motivated
employees.

Slide 20
The most widely accepted Normative Leadership style is Transformational
Leadership. As you can see on the figure in the left it is often compared to
some of the other leadership types we have already discussed in this
course. This is due in part in that it doesn’t encompass one particular set
of rules but is defined by 4 distinct characteristics in which leaders use to
transform from the current state to a more desired state of performance.
Definition: as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and
social systems. In its ideal form, it creates valuable and positive change in
the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders.
(Burns, 1973)
For the first time we see the concept of moving followers to leaders.
Transformational leadership looks to model the right mindset and values
of leadership and move away from transactional or task driven
interactions between leaders and followers.
Transformational Leaders model 4 distinct characteristics (figure on
the right):
1. Individualized Influence: modelling the right behaviour, different
from expert leadership as it is focused on modelling the values of
leadership such as hard work instead of task completion.
2. Inspirational Motivation: Similar to charismatic leadership but
considers moral and ethical decisions instead of political influence
3. Individualized Consideration: Similar to situational leadership but
the followers needs and not task completion define the interaction
and relationship
4. Intellectual Stimulation: Leaders look to challenge established
principals and look to ‘outside the box’ thinking.
As we go forward for the rest of the semester we are going to start to
challenge traditional leadership models and think about adaptive or
inclusive ways in which to inspire others. Transformational ways of
thinking promote changing from the status quo using the relationship
between the manager and associate as the catalyst for positive change.
So let’s look at why this is different.

Slide 21
So what makes Transformational Leadership different from the other
normative models? Well the answer lies in not only having clearly defined
and well accepted attributes but a process that focuses on specific goals
and outcomes.
Similar to many of the contingency models we have reviewed,
Transformational Leadership works on a timeline. Remember the goal is
to move associate thinking or transform it to that of which we associate
with leaders. Also remember very early on we distinguished leadership
behaviour as that which moves from the current to a desired state
(whereas managing means efficiently performing within the status quo).
So let’s look at how this works…the figure on the right identifies 4 other
key steps needed to move to the desired state of expanding leadership
qualities in others.
Step 1: Develop a strategic vision. Visualize and plan for where you want
to get to.
Step 2: Communicate the vision. Don’t keep it a secret but promote the
desired state as attainable and better than the current state.
Step 3: Model the vision. As the leader use the right leadership attributes
(figure on the left) in the right mindset. Don’t ask others to do what you
wouldn’t do yourself.
Step 4: Build commitment to the vision…but how?
Commitment grows when people:
Work together.
Feel successful at what they do.
Make decisions together.
Work through conflicts.
Support one another's leadership.
Have fun and play together.
Overcome obstacles.
Hold each other to high principles.
As you can see there is a clear and distinct relationship between the
attributes of transformational leaders and how they get their teams to
work towards effective change.

Slide 22
To really understand the value of Transactional Leadership let’s look at
how it drives organizational values and performance.
As you can see in the figure above both Transactional (traditional) and
Transformational (Inclusive) models look to drive outcomes. Both types of
theories of driving desired outcomes. What Burns promotes however is
that using transformational methods will surpass expected or mediocre
results and instead allow each associate to maximize their potential.
The box on the right helps the transformational leader compare their
behaviours to traditional transactional methods. Once you can model what
not to do you can work on improving your skills and model those to
others.
Transformational leadership is easy to understand, easy to implement,
and more realistic than some of the other leadership forms.
Transformational leadership is one leadership style that should be
embraced at the senior level of organizations to manage organizational
knowledge through implementing organizational change and developing a
shared vision for future expansion into global business environments.
The key to transformational leadership is based upon meeting and
surpassing basic needs and meeting higher desires though inspiring
followers to provide newer solutions and create a better workplace. This
leadership employs charismatic behaviors and motivates subordinates to
provide better outcomes, more profitability, and more satisfying careers.
Transformational leaders focus on the critical human assets, such as
commitment, and help followers to effectively implement organizational
changes with both efficiency and effectiveness. It is this leadership that
sheds light on the strategic role of follower attitudes and values to
accomplish a higher degree of effectiveness and highlights the importance
of employees in implementing changes at the organizational level.

Slide 23
So all of the normative theories in principle have merits but it still doesn’t
explain why some people regardless of experience, education and position
don’t seem to perform equally. You will be asked to try and explain why
you perceive some leaders better than others in your Personal
Assessment assignment and even though you will be able to connect
course concepts to behaviours you have witnessed, you may still feel an
emotional connection or feeling of ‘liking’ some examples more than
others.
So why is that. If we have spent all this time moving from emotional or
‘gut’ decisions about leadership to systematic empirical approaches then
we should be able to ‘construct’ the ideal leader using the best of each
model.
Well what we can’t do is build a human mind, let alone many minds all
with different versions of how they see the world (at least not yet, but the
artificial intelligence (AI) researchers are trying hard).
The answer may be in ‘intelligence’ and not the artificial kind. We all know
people who we perceive as being smart or brilliant or maybe not as smart.
Part of how we define ourselves is based on how much we think we know
and how we can convey that information. Even in this class you may
categorize or group people based upon how smart you think they are.
So smart people should make good leaders right? Well actually many
people who rate high on IQ (Intelligence Quotient) lack many of the
traditional leadership qualities or attributes we have identified in this
module. If there are any fans of the ‘Big Bang Theory’ reading this you will
be able to relate Sheldon's behaviour as being anything but that of which
we would model as a leader. In fact in many episodes the writers expose
Sheldon’s weaknesses when trying to relate and inspire others.
That may explain why it isn’t enough just to learn leadership principles in
the traditional sense. In fact we may need to look at intelligence
differently when we talk about how leaders interact with others.
Leadership is about effective change including adapting individual
behaviours based upon changing situations. Being able to see and react to
these changes is the called ‘awareness’.
As you can see above awareness uses knowledge and understanding,
principles we associate with intelligent behaviour but it isn’t traditional
‘book smarts’ or the ability to learn in formal situations but something
else. That something else is you and how you perceive your actions. As we
have seen before our perceptions can fool us, however they don’t fool us
all the same all the time.
Those who can focus on trying to improve understanding and make better
social decisions are said to have ‘Self-Awareness. ‘Social-Awareness’ is
your ability to change how you react based upon reading other’s
emotions.
As it turns out, this type of intelligent behaviour may be the key in
improving leadership skills and social interaction in general…ladies &
gentlemen I present you “Emotional Intelligence”

Slide 24
A Brief History of Emotional Intelligence
Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer coined the term ‘Emotional Intelligence’
in 1990 describing it as “a form of social intelligence that involves the
ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to
discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one’s
thinking and action”.
Salovey and Mayer also initiated a research program intended to develop
valid measures of emotional intelligence and to explore its significance.
For instance, they found in one study that when a group of people saw an
upsetting film, those who scored high on emotional clarity (which is the
ability to identify and give a name to a mood that is being experienced)
recovered more quickly. In another study, individuals who scored higher in
the ability to perceive accurately, understand, and appraise others’
emotions were better able to respond flexibly to changes in their social
environments and build supportive social networks.
Daniel Goleman and Emotional Intelligence
In the 1990’s Daniel Goleman became aware of Salovey and Mayer’s
work, and this eventually led to his book, Emotional Intelligence. Goleman
was a science writer for the New York Times, specialising in brain and
behaviour research. He trained as a psychologist at Harvard where he
worked with David McClelland, among others. McClelland was among a
growing group of researchers who were becoming concerned with how
little traditional tests of cognitive intelligence told us about what it takes
to be successful in life.
Goleman argued that it was not cognitive intelligence that guaranteed
business success but emotional intelligence. He described emotionally
intelligent people as those with four characteristics:
They were good at understanding their own emotions (self-awareness)
They were good at managing their emotions (self-management)
They were empathetic to the emotional drives of other people (social
awareness)
They were good at handling other people’s emotions (social skills)
https://blog.heartmanity.com/the-history-of-emotional-intelligence-in-the-
workplace
Basically those who rank high on EQ (Emotional Intelligence) can adapt
and react to situations. If people who understand leadership attributes
and theories and can relate them to real world situations you have the
potential for effective leadership. So let’s see how EQ works.

Slide 25
Similar to other models we have studied, EI can be broken down into
separate components:
1. Self Awareness, we already described this concept but in general to
score high on SA you need to accurately assess your own
behaviours. For example, when you watch situation comedies, the
writers often use character’s lack of self awareness in awkward
scenes. By feeling bad or uncomfortable for the actor you are
showing your own self awareness by placing yourself in that
situation. Any fans of “The Office” will know what I am talking about
when Michael Scott often doesn’t accurately assess his own self
awareness.
2. Self Management: Well this is the ability to control your emotions.
You may feel uncomfortable crying in public as an example but just
can’t help yourself while watching a sad movie. Maybe some of you
just couldn’t self manage when Jackson killed himself at the end of
“A Star is Born™”
3. Social Awareness: As we said before, it is one thing to understand
our own emotions but what about reading others? Are you aware
when other people are making excuses to leave or change the
subject. Many of you may notice I tend to initiate polls at different
times in the class. This is to see how many of you are still engaged.
 In an online environment it is difficult for me to use the usual cues I
would gauge in a face to face class.
4. Relationship Management: This is what I do with that information. As
an example when I lecture in a face to face class, I use social
awareness to modify our relationships and change my behaviours to
try and keep you engaged. That may mean stopping a lecture and
giving you the opportunity to work in groups, watch a video clip or
play a game in order to better manage the situation.
So basically it comes down to asking myself 2 questions:
i) Who am I? This includes the concepts of self & social awareness.
ii) What do I do? This includes the concepts of self management & how
I use my ‘social skills’ to manage relationships.
The more noise or confusion there is, the harder the ability to assess your
and other’s behaviours.

Slide 26
Similar to how we measure IQ, EQ use test scores to measure our level of
emotional intelligence.
As explained above individuals take an Emotional Intelligence test and
earn a score. Depending on that score you are assessed a level of EQ. In
theory the higher you score, the better you are to self monitor and change
your behaviours in different situations. These can include highly charged
emotional states such as anxiety or confusing states such as interacting
with many people at one time. Speaking in public for example according
to emotional intelligence is a complex tasks that takes a significant EQ.
EQ does differ from IQ in one very important point. That point is that IQ is
seen to be static or doesn’t change over time. Even as you learn new
things, IQ doesn’t change. IQ is seen as your ability to learn and not
necessarily what you know.
EQ however, is adaptable, according to Goleman, you can improve your
EQ by using the right strategies. This is the connection we are interested
in when it comes to leadership. The most effective models we have looked
at to date require the leader to adapt and change. This ability is key to
moving from theory to practice or move from trying to explain traditional
models to using inclusive leadership models.
The rest of the term is about how you exhibit and make decisions in
situations. Using the strategies in the previous models and recognizing
and measuring effectiveness in the workplace.

Slide 27
To review, we moved from how leaders measure and assess performance
not by what they value but instead using attributes that are shared by
both the leader and the subordinates.
We do this by creating frameworks using established rules or norms that
are universally accepted. We reviewed four frameworks of Normative
Theories and how they are similar but also how they differ from one
another.
Finally, we tried to explain
Module 7

Slide 2
We will discuss the differences between groups of people and teams.
Teams develop differently than groups based on the alignment of team
goals vs individual needs or goals. How a team develops depends on
whether or not they will be effective. In order to maximize the benefits of
the collective talents of the individuals a team needs to move to what
Tuckman identifies as performance.
All teams are not the same and the goals or outcomes will determine the
type of team and how to choose the desired competencies necessary for
team success.
We will finish up by looking at how teams differ in performance. Measuring
a team’s effectiveness is directly related in how they are able to solve
problems and conflicts. Using inclusive leadership traits enhances
maximizing individual performance and improving team effectiveness
based on previously discussed motivators such as job satisfaction.
There is little doubt that all of you will continue to work in teams or
committees in the workplace after graduation. The skills you learn about
the concepts of team performance and more importantly your exposure to
team work in this and other courses will better prepare you for what is
becoming an increasingly important transferable skill.

Slide 3
The first thing to note is that teams differ from groups.
As you can see in the slide, although there is a relationship between group
members, goals are individual and therefore performance is managed
individually. How connected each of the group members are is known as
interdependence. Interdependence is the reliance that one individual has
with another or others in a group.
When interdependence between group members align with a core
purpose or common goal the group moves to a team. In other words each
member has a mutual goal and are equally accountable to achieving that
goal. Simply, groups use each other to try and improve individual goals
whereas teams work together to attain a singular goal.
An easy example would be this class. You are all classmates so you belong
to the group of MGMT 8760/8761 students in your section at Conestoga
College. You all have common classes, professors and work due. You may
rely on one another to help you study or support one another in each class
or throughout your program but you are all assessed individually, at least
for the most part.
From time to time, including in this course you are required to work
together. Ironically we call this ‘group work’ on FOL. The reality is that we
are teaching you the skill set we will discuss throughout this module of
working towards being ‘effective teams.
The power of a team emerges from the sense of community that develops
and exerts strong influence on the attitudes and behaviors of the
participants. Peer pressure and a desire to be a productive member of the
team helps to shape priorities and direct efforts where they will support
the team goals.
As a leader and manager, you are no longer limited to managing
individuals. You have an opportunity to manage the team as a whole and
enlist the support of the team to help manage both team and individual
performance.

Slide 4
This slide outlines some of the specific traits and compares the difference
of groups and teams. As an interesting note here you will notice that
groups need a strong and designated leader. If we think of the class
example, Conestoga has given me the designation of professor which in
turn gives me the authority to plan, facilitate and measure your individual
performance based on the required elements of this course.
Not only is each of your performance assessed individually but different
professors demonstrate different leadership styles. The type of learning
can differ based upon personal teaching preferences, philosophies on how
to be an effective teacher and even the content of each course. Your
reflection or assessment of each professor may also differ based on how
‘effective’ you feel they are teaching and engaging you in the course
material. However you don’t have the role or responsibility of making
specific changes in the process. You are left to ‘manage’ the best you can
while using each other for support.
As a team you see the true concepts of leadership start to show up.
Shared roles and responsibilities are the foundation of reaching shared
goals necessary for team development. As you work together in your
assigned teamwork for the course you start to understand that your
performance is more dependent (interdependency) on each other. This is
the concept of conforming. You adapt some of your beliefs or feelings
about the task to align with what is best for the team as a whole.
However many of you won’t conform. You will continue to believe that
your interpretation of what is right for your work to dominate the culture
of the team. This has implications for performance that we will discuss
going forward.

Slide 5
First let’s look at how groups move to teams. In 1965, Bruce Tuckman
introduced what he saw as the stages necessary for team formation.
Originally Tuckman introduced 4 independent steps that measured how
much and why group members conform.
1. Forming: the getting together and assignment of roles when
groups are assigned a common task. For example, working together
in the simulation for this course. First you needed to figure out what
roles each of you would take.
2. Storming: at some level group members need to learn to work
together. What strengths and weaknesses each member has and
leaders emerge to take control. This can lead to the creation of
conflict between individuals (more on conflict later).
 3. Norming: creating rules the group uses to define how they will
work together. Helps with negotiating conflict and set expectations
for the group.
4. Performing: the assumption that the group has now turned into a
team. That the rules, role allocation and conflict has been resolved
to a point that the team can now work on solving the problem or
attain the goal allocated in the beginning.
Now let’s think about why I allowed you to choose your own group
members. If you remember I made it sound like I was doing you a favour.
However I was also using my own self interest based on Tuckman’s model.
I recognize that if you choose your own group members, your choices will
probably be based on knowing your team mates already. In other words
you had a greater likelihood based on knowing each other or even better
working together in the past in already having gone through the forming,
storming and norming stages and are already performing on some level.
So yes it makes you feel better but also helps me in minimizing the
amount of issues I would have to deal with during team formation. This is
known as a win/win solution which you will see shortly is the best method
of conflict resolution. Oh and I got the added bonus of demonstrating
inclusive leadership behaviours of allowing you to feel like you had some
level of control as well.
Fast forward to 1977 and Tuckman adds a fifth stage to the model;
Adjourning:
In the adjourning stage, most of the team's goals have been
accomplished. The emphasis is on wrapping up final tasks and
documenting the effort and results. As the work load is diminished,
individual members may be reassigned to other teams, and the team
disbands. There is often a feeling of sadness as working together,
specifically if you met your goals created strong bonds between group
members. Tuckman recognized this strong connection to other based on
performance translates to future performance. First, as a contributor to
the team you learn the skills necessary to move from individual to group
performance. Second, that in future teams you will use the skills from
previous teams to perform again, not only to reach the desired goal but
also the intrinsic rewards of creating strong team bonds. Yup, I know you
are all going to miss me when this course is done based upon us meeting
our collective goal of understanding and using effective leadership
principles.

Slide 6
Teams do differ in how they work. This is based on the outcomes and the
process to obtain goals.
Types of Teams:
1. Functional: group of people with a common functional expertise
working toward shared objectives. For example the accounting
department in an organization.
2. Problem Solving: temporary structures that bring together leaders
and team members from across the organization to focus on
solving a specific problem
 3. Cross Functional: groups consisting of people from different
functional areas of the company – for example, marketing,
product, sales, and customer success.
4. Virtual: a group of individuals who work across time, space, and
organizational boundaries with links strengthened by webs of
communication technology.
5. Self-Managed: small group of employees whose members
determine, plan, and manage their day-to-day activities and duties
under reduced or no supervision.
6. Global: include people from different places around the world.
Increasingly becoming interconnected with virtual teams.
Each type of team has their strengths and challenges. For example, global
teams often include greater diversity which is an indicator of enhanced
problem solving due to multiple perspectives. However at the same time
global teams are often challenged by logistical issues of different time
zones and potential communication and language barriers.
The right side of the slide demonstrates the 3 C’s necessary regardless of
the type of team.
Coordination is the orchestrated efforts of individuals or groups to align
or synchronize their separate actions. They exchange relevant information
and resources in support of each other’s distinct goals but remain
independent. An example would be when the IT department
communicates to Facilities that they plan on changing out computers
during a certain week.
Cooperation is the coordinated efforts of a group of two or more people
to perform their assigned portion of a shared process or task. They are
dependent on each other to execute a mutual objective. For example, IT
relies on Finance and Shipping to ensure that new computers are
purchased and delivered on time for installation.
Collaboration is the mutual engagement of a group of two or more in a
co-creative effort that achieves a shared goal or vision. They are
interdependent, with each unique contribution essential to the whole.
Collaboration is a special act of co-creation, and the outcomes are often
both unpredictable and impossible to achieve without the individual
contributions of every member. An example would be several people and
departments working together to shift an organization’s culture.
As you can see the more complicated the desired outcome the more
teams need to work together through collaboration.

Slide 7
Now that we have discussed how teams form and what types there are we
need to look at how individuals contribute.
We all have strengths and areas in which we can improve. We outlined
many such traits when discussing leadership theories in the first half of
the course. You assessed your own personalities doing the MBTI. Well
teams are the same, there are definable roles. Having a good balance of
different personalities in teams aligned with the specific outcomes are a
strong indicator in team success.
Meredith Belbin is one researcher who looked to assign specific roles to
team behaviour. His work included creating the Belbin Team Role
Inventory which is a behavioural assessment tool that asks a series of
questions and based upon individual’s responses assigns a specific team
role. There are nine roles in total broken down into 3 categories:
1. Action Orientation: Includes the Shaper, Implementer &
Completer Finisher (see figure and link for complete definition by
role). Action Orientation indicate that roles in this category are the
people who get work done. They role up their sleeves and ensure
work is completed on time.
2. People Orientation: Includes the Coordinator, Teamworker &
Resource Investigator. People oriented members are concerned
with keeping positive relations and therefore make the working
conditions pleasant and interdependence high.
3. Cerebral or Thinking Roles: They include the Plant, Monitor
Evaluator, Specialist. These are the idea people who add creativity
and innovation to the group.
Link: https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles/
Important to note is that Belbin doesn’t claim that you can only assume
one role but that like the MBTI or Big 5 personality dimensions, you have a
tendency to occupy one role type in a team. Later Belbin showed that the
type of team and how many of each role were present, individuals in
effective would adapt their roles to ensure all 3 categories are present.
Here is an example of depending on what team you are on, you could
change from one role to another. The director of IT may be seen as the
specialist when meeting with senior leaders. That role would assume
expertise and being able to promote the projects and directions of the IT
department to other senior leaders. However when meeting with
programmers of his/her team, the director may act as in people
orientation role such as the coordinator to keep the team on task. I will
post a link and directions for those of you who wish to do the Belbin test in
this week’s content.

Slide 8
Social loafing is dark side of teamwork. The concept is that instead of
facilitating a productive environment that individuals may actually
decrease performance due to the feeling that someone else will do the
work anyway.
Causes:
Motivation: can play an important role in determining whether social
loafing takes place. People who are less motivated by a task are more
likely to engage in social loafing when they are part of a group.
Diffusion of Responsibility: When in groups, people tend to feel less
personal accountability and may even feel that their individual efforts
have little impact on the outcome. It is this same diffusion of responsibility
that influences what is known as the bystander effect, or the tendency
to be less likely to help a person in trouble when other people are present.
Because people assume that their efforts don’t matter and that they are
not personally responsible, they also assume that someone else will be
the one to take action.
Group Size: also has a serious impact on the effort people put forth in
groups. In small groups, people are more likely to feel that their efforts
are more important and will therefore contribute more. The larger the
group, however, the less individual effort people will extend.
Expectations: If you expect other people to slack off, you probably will as
well since you don’t want to get stuck doing all of the work. On the other
hand, if you are in a group of high-achievers who seem like they are in
control of the group’s efforts, you might also be more likely to kick back
and let them handle all the work.
Prevention:

Social loafing can have a serious impact on group performance and

Slide 9
An important aspect of team formation and working together is the role
that conflict plays in performance. Traditionally we tend to look to
minimize or avoid conflict. This falls in line with cognitive dissonance we
talked about during motivation. We look to be in stable and predictable
relationships which make us feel comfortable.
In fact there is evidence that conflict can lead to destructive behaviours in
teams. See above about how conflict, specifically when used as personal
attacks can demotivate teams and reduce performance.
However, conflict can be positive as well. When managed properly,
conflict can enhance decision making and cohesion in teams. Conflict can
lead to problem solving and feelings of accomplishment and overcoming
obstacles. The amount that teams rely on one another or increased
interdependence becomes a learned skill and future obstacles are seen as
challenges and not reasons for being blamed for poor performance.
The principle of conflict here is between individuals but it is interesting to
note that conflict can exist within an individual as well. We are often at
odds with what decision to make. We try and create solutions to solving
internal conflicts like doing cost/benefit analysis (internal locus of control)
or perhaps leave the decision to chance, maybe flip a coin to make a
choice (external locus of control).
Team conflict is the same as internal conflict but the reason it enhances
decision making, is that individual inputs are collected by all team
members increasing the chance of finding novel solutions that would have
been missed by individuals (especially if you have cerebral or thinking
roles on the team).

Slide 10
As we saw in the previous slide conflict can be negative or positive for
teams. Regardless of how conflict is perceived, it is inevitable. There is a
likelihood even the proponents of conflict being positive will see the ugly
effects of the negative aspects of making the disagreement within group
members turn into personal attacks.
So let’s look at conflict avoidance and the principles of keeping the peace
in teams. First and maybe most importantly to you as a manager/leader of
a team is that conflict avoidance is often invisible. In other words team
members may be making decisions to remain quiet or refrain from voicing
their opinions based upon not wanting to ‘rock the boat’. We have seen
this type of behaviour already when we discussed groupthink and
specifically the Abilene Paradox referring to whistleblowing and ethical
behaviour.
Groupthink and appeasement techniques aren’t just for ethics however. In
the case of conflict avoidance you can stifle the creative aspects of
inclusion that effective teams use to enhance overall performance. Many
of you for example may not feel comfortable speaking up in your teams.
You would rather just accept other’s positions instead of feeling awkward.
There is a direct relationship to the conflict avoidance philosophy with
how directly related the issue is to the core values of an individual. From
time to time as a manager you are going to be faced with a team member
who usually is quiet and reserved, blowing up at other team members.
Either due to some cathartic need to be heard (building up of not saying
anything over time), external reasons (such as personal crises heightening
sensitivity) or being more closely tied to personal reasons for the current
issue, conflict avoiding associates can act out of character and escalate
the conflict to a level where it must be dealt with or severe and lasting
consequences may impact future team performance.
The 10 Ways to Avoid Conflict is a good way to think about minimizing
negative conflict (dysfunctional) while still engaging your teams in ways
that will promote speaking up and engaging others in healthy dialogue.
Effective managers don’t look to turn the other way or promote others do
that but instead create an environment that promotes healthy dialogue in
public and are also available to have empathetic conversations with their
teams privately as well. This means that managers don’t avoid but instead
look at conflict as part of the interpersonal relationships for each associate
and use situational leadership and communication to look for and promote
all team member’s viewpoints.

Slide 11
Moving from just avoiding or accepting conflict, Thomas & Kilman
recognized that there are 5 specific ways in which people deal conflict.
Avoidance is relabeled as Cooperativeness or how individuals are willing
to accept conflict and not speak up based on keeping harmony in the
group or feeling of having negative consequences if they do say anything.
Assertiveness on the other hand is those individuals who look to seek out
conflict.
1. Accommodating (Low Assertivenes & Hi Cooperativeness)
An accommodating style forsakes your own needs or desires in exchange
for those of others. You would be putting the concerns of others before
your own. This style usually takes place when you either simply give in or
are persuaded to give in.
This style could be appropriate to use when you care less about the issue
than the others, want to keep the peace, feel as though you are in the
wrong, or feel like you have no choice but to agree to the other point-of-
view.
2. Avoiding (Low Assertiveness & Low Cooperativeness)
An avoiding style completely evades the conflict. You would neither
pursue your beliefs nor those of the others involved. Simply, you would
continuously postpone or completely dodge the conflict whenever it
comes up.
This style could be appropriate to use when the conflict seems trivial, you
don't have the time or need more time to think, you feel as though you
have no chance of winning, or you're afraid of being met with resentment.
3. Compromising (Lose/Lose, similar to middle of the road
management)
A compromising style attempts to find a solution that will at least partially
please all parties. You would work to find a middle ground between all the
needs, which would typically leave people unsatisfied or satisfied to a
certain extent.
This style could be appropriate to use when it's more important to reach a
solution than for the solution to be great, a deadline is rapidly
approaching, you're at an impasse, or you need a temporary solution for
the moment.
4. Collaborating (Win/Win, Hi-Assertiveness & Hi
Cooperativeness)
A collaborating style attempts to find a solution that will meet the needs
of all parties. Rather than trying to find a middle ground solution, you
would aim for a solution that actually satisfies everyone and ends up
being a win-win situation.
This style could be appropriate when multiple perspectives need to be
addressed
5. Competing (Hi Assertiveness & Low Cooperativeness)
A competing style takes a firm stance and refuses to see the perspectives
of the other parties. You would keep pushing your viewpoint at others or
keep rejecting their ideas until you get your way.
This style could be appropriate when you have to stand up for your rights
or morals which prevents only the opposing viewpoint being heard.
We all have some people who come to mind when we think of whether or
not they would stand up for themselves or not. Like all behavior we can
put strategy around how to improve. The principles of reinforcement also
are at work here so how we react when faced with problems we don’t
agree with have been shaped by past experience and future outcomes will
be shaped by having the opportunity to change or be further engrained in
how we currently act.
Here is a link to a test that let’s you know what your preferred conflict
resolution style is:
Link:
https://tools.mheducation.ca/college/mcshane4/student/olc/4obm_sa_13.h
tml

Slide 12
Functional Traits:
1. Awareness of both sides of the issue
2. Improved working conditions due to creating solutions as a team
3. Improves morale that team can overcome issues
4. Improves innovation, creativity and performance
Dysfunctional Traits:
1. Individual goals over ride team goals
2. Reduces team cohesion
3. Reduces information sharing, creativity & innovation
4. Absence of conflict also mean the limitation of growth and
opportunities to have positive aspects of functional conflict
Conflict and Performance:
As you can see in the figure on the right conflict has an impact on
performance. Focusing functional conflict increases productivity by
manifesting the functional traits. However a lack of healthy constructive
conflict minimizes a teams ability to improve conflict resolution, stifles
creativity & innovation and ultimately hurts the team’s potential.
Likewise, unhealthy or high rates of dysfunctional conflict hurt
performance due to the attacking nature that destabilizes individual
relationships. The key to having functional conflict is to focus on the
problem and not the person. Look to work together to solve a problem
instead of attacking others.

Slide 13
Managing Dysfunctional Conflict:
1. Mediate the conflict.
The manager intervenes and tries to negotiate a resolution by using
reasoning and persuasion, suggesting alternatives and the like. One of the
keys is trying to find common ground. In some cases the project manager
can make the argument that the win/lose interchange has escalated to
the point that it has become lose/lose for everyone and now is the time to
make concessions to resolve the dysfunctional conflict.
2. Arbitrate the conflict.
The manager imposes a solution to the dysfunctional conflict after
listening to each party. The goal is not to decide who wins but to have the
project win. In doing so, it is important to seek a solution that allows each
party to save face; otherwise the decision may provide only momentary
relief.
3. Control the conflict.
Reducing the intensity of the conflict by smoothing over differences or
interjecting humor is an effective strategy. If feelings are escalating, the
manager can adjourn the interaction and hope cooler heads prevail the
next day. If the dysfunctional conflict continues to escalate, project
assignments may need to be rearranged if possible so that two parties
don’t have to work together.
4. Accept it.
In some cases the conflict will outlive the life of the project and, though a
distraction, it is one the manager has to live with.
5. Eliminate the conflict.
Sometimes the dysfunctional conflict has escalated to the point that it is
no longer tolerable. In this case the manager removes the members
involved from the project. If there is a clear villain then only he or she
should be removed.
Promoting Functional Conflict: (Leading)
Instead of looking at conflict that needs to be managed or avoided, set
clear ground rules about the need to disagree from time to time. The basis
of the disagreement must be focused on problem solving and the
manager needs to think about inclusive traits that models that they can
control and focus conflict on healthy outcomes that include everyone’s
opinions in a safe environment. Although in theory this sounds easy or
manageable but even in progressive inclusive organizations with good
leadership, conflict can become personal so using the methods of
reducing dysfunctional conflict outlined above, can get the discussions
refocused on problem solving and minimize the damage of personal
attacks in a team. The ability to perform and maximize the potential for
team decisions and individual success is the main indicator of ‘Effective
Teams’

Slide 14
Tuckman called stage 4 Performing and it is in this stage that a team can
prove to be more effective than the sum of individual performance.
Forming, Storming & Norming all take time and resources to accomplish
so in the beginning of a team’s existence they actually ‘cost’ more.
Remember cost is in money, time and resources. Until the team can
actually perform they are cost prohibitive. Yet we see this movement in
business to rely on teams so why bother?
The answer is in performance. However not every team moves to the
performance stage and that is where the manager/leader/supervisor plays
a key role. Under the right direction and planning leadership needs to
identify why, who and what the team is being made to accomplish.
This slide and the next few will look at creating, assessing and thinking
about teams that perform which will now re-label as ‘Effective Teams’.
Creating effective teams is the key to unlocking performance and makes
going through the extra effort of team formation worthwhile. We will also
look at the traditional models of team development and assessment and
then think about inclusive leadership traits as well. Remember that
inclusive leadership is all about unlocking the potential of each associate
instead of assuming performance based on organizational goals alone.
In the first box you see a chain that talks about how groups become
effective teams based on the difference of not just outputs but on the
ability to improve in the future as well. The traditional approach looks at
team formation as a systematic process that is similar to solving
problems. First the manager needs to assess the problem that needs to be
solved. Often this is done for front line management. For example a
company may be installing and rolling out a new software solution and the
manager needs to put a team together to implement the training of the
new process to their team. So that manager knows what needs to be done
but who will do it? This is a typical example of team formation in
traditional business, a specific problem needs to be done and a ‘problem-
solving’ team is assembled to complete the task.
Inclusive organizations tend to exist in businesses that demand
continuous improvement. So by their nature teams tend to exist to solve
not a single problem but to drive creativity and innovation. In that sense
the manager still needs to plan and select the right people but also use
inclusive leadership traits such as modelling, empathy, support and
ensure the proper resources are in place to not only solve the current
problem but move the team into a ‘desired state’ of increased confidence
to solve a series of more and more complex problems.

Slide 15
It is all well and good to plan, create and motivate a team to become
effective but like all aspects of business and goal setting the organization
needs to assess whether or not they are getting a return on their
investment (ROI). However, as we have seen in motivation, it can be a
complex task just to provide the right quantity and quality of information
to drive individual success and assess it, adding more than one person to
measuring performance increases the number of variables exponentially.
For example: is your entire team effective or do you have social loafers? Is
the performance based on one, two or all involved in the team?
The traditional model looks to assess individual contributions. Managers
are tasked to tease apart each member’s role, and how well they are
performing. Other than directly observing behaviours, front line leadership
looks at an individual’s contribution the same way they would look at that
employee if they were not working with a team. There are some
differences in measuring and rewarding team dynamics but if you look on
the box on the left each manager is making the assumption if each team
member does their role that the team will meet the outlined
organizational goal. This aligns with the concept of managing vs leading,
whoever is responsible for the team needs to show the organization that
they are capable of creating and managing a team to meet what the
organization has deemed important.
Leaders (including mangers) look at teams differently, they are looking for
ways to improve the workplace. For example a front line manager may
understand that organizations may need to solve another problem in the
future so they not only look to assess individual’s performance within the
team but instead look to guide the team to work together, look at conflict
as an opportunity and assess whether the current team membership is
worth investing in again. To do this you need to ensure you understand
not just the performance but the dynamics of the team and how well they
relate and work together.
The box on the right outlines inclusive steps to effectively model, direct
and more importantly include team members in the development of their
goals. Remember that the definition of teams vs groups is that the
individuals share a common goal and being inclusive means everyone
gets to have their opinions heard. Again, let’s look at my reason for
allowing you to choose your own group members; first, it was announced
to you that I was doing you a favour (rational persuasion), then a few
slides back, I told you it was due to you more likely being in Stage 4:
Performing (mutual benefit for your team and me or a win/win). Finally if
you think about the concept of inclusion, your teams were directed to
make goals together and tell me how you were going to work together.
Now I still have to make assumptions about the competencies of your
individual members and that is where you communicating with me about
other’s performance comes in.
Informally, many of you reach out to me when you are having conflict
within your teams and I use inclusive techniques to try and guide you to a
collaborative solution. Formally, in your final reflection paper you will
provide me with a peer evaluation or my version of 360 degree feedback
from each of you about the others you work with. Based on that
information you are all graded based upon submitted work.

Slide 16
As we have seen if we can move groups into effective teams we can
expect increased performance including:
• It’s a better way to use employee talents
• Teams are more flexible and responsive to changing events
• Teams have the capability to quickly assemble, deploy, refocus, and
disband
• Can be more motivational, allow for greater task identity
• Teams typically outperform individuals if tasks require multiple
skills, judgment, experience
The variety of types of teams and different ways to assess them show how
the role of teamwork has increased in organizations. The popularity of
teamwork has many roots, some of which we will talk about next week in
our module on diversity but the two main reasons teams are popular in
todays workplace can be thought of in two ways.
1. Process & Production: Before the pandemic, the unemployment rate
in Canada was at historic low levels. That means that employees
had more choices about where they want to work based on what
each person sees as a ‘better’ job or career. In a culture of high
employee turnover, teams can be the difference of task completion
or not. As a manager if you assign a task to one person and that
person leaves, often the manager must complete the task or find
someone else to do it. This causes major delays and increases costs.
Assigning those tasks to groups or teams of individuals means
having a better chance to complete the tasks. Employees who leave
 don’t stall the project as there are still others who can continue. It
may mean a delay but the project doesn’t stall until someone else is
assigned to it and brought up to speed.
2. Better Performance: Synergy or gestalt, stating that you get better
results to problems, specifically complex problems when you
improve the quality of input into solving it. Working together, having
the right role selection and environment means improved results in
the current state and when thought about in the process of
continuous improvement, future or desired results and change are
easier to achieve as well.
So why not use teams for everything?
As you can see in the bottom of the slide, the extra effort of moving to
team effectiveness isn’t always necessary. Many things that are done in
the workplace would be inefficient to include more than one person. Also
in many cases you may benefit from challenging individuals to perform
over others. For example in sales, competition is often promoted. In our
conflict model, cooperativeness is low in competition for a reason. You are
looking to attract and reward people who motivate others by modelling
success and not inclusive communication. Finally, interdependence is key
as well. Even if teams have common goals but don’t need the help of
others to achieve their part or responsibility you are actually creating
effective groups instead of teams. Functional teams are often thought of
as teams but in many cases these teams are departments like HR, Sales,
Operations, etc… Although the goals are common, each employee may
just as easily be managed and have their performance appraised
individually.