Team Transformational Leadership, Trust, Satisfaction, and
Commitment: Testing a Structural Equation Model in
Software Development Teams
Shih-Yi “Clark” Hsu
H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneruship
Nova Southeastern University
shihyi@nova.edu
Bahaudin G. Mujtaba
H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneruship
Nova Southeastern University
dastoor@horatio.sbe.nova.edu
Abstract
This paper studied the relationship among team transformational leadership, team trust, job satisfaction, and team
commitment of the team members in software development teams in the United States of America. A total of 5,375
surveys were distributed and only 69 respondents completed the online survey. Based upon 65 validated respondents,
this study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and evaluated the direct and indirect weights of path coefficients
among the latent variables by using the AMOS 6.0 and SPSS 11.0 software at 5% level of significance. The results
using path analysis indicate that team transformational leadership is strongly positively related to team empowerment
(r= .86, p= .00) and team trust (r= .82, p= .00) in software development teams while team empowerment (r= .27, p=.
55) and team trust (r= .29, p= .55) are not related to job satisfaction in software development teams. There is a slight
positive relationship between team job satisfaction and the team commitment (r= .18, p= .04).
Keyword: team transformational leadership, team trust, team job satisfaction, team commitment, software
development teams
1. Purpose of Study
ongoing group dynamics within teams. There is very
Sawyer and Guinan [1998] indicate that
little management related research aimed on software
team-level social processes in software development
development teams. Previous research indicates that
teams are positively related to the quality of software
human relationships are more important than
products. Hence, information system project team
technological aspects in terms of performance in
leaders need to understand not only the techniques
software development teams [Guinan, Cooprider, &
and methodologies known as computer aided
Faraj, 1998; Howard, 2001; Rasch & Henry, 1992].
software engineering [CASE] tools, but also the
1
The purpose of this paper studied the
managers and workers, and internal and external
relationship among team transformational leadership,
circumstances [Sweeney & McFarlin].
team trust, job satisfaction, and team commitment of
2.1. The Group Dynamics
The definition of the group dynamics is “the
the team members in software development teams in
the United States of America.
social process by which people interact face-to-face
2. Theoretical Foundation
in small groups” [Newstrom & Davis, 2002, p. 285].
In order to understand the role of teamwork in
The founder of the group dynamics movement is
the software development process, researchers have
named Kurt Lewin in 1945 [Graham, 2002]. He
adopted models from organizational behavior science,
discovered that:
such as leader-member exchange and group
The group controlled through leadership
dynamics. The model developed in this study depicts
rather than force; ensured discipline through
teamwork as relationships among team
internal pressure; pooled thinking; respected
transformational leadership, empowerment, trust, job
the individual; and allowed all its members
satisfaction, and commitment.
to participate in deciding on things that
There are three behavioral sciences:
directly affected them in their work [p.
psychology (the study of individual behavior),
2612].
2.2. Teamwork
sociology (the study of social behavior within
societies, institutions, and group), and anthropology
Walker Royce [1998, p. 43] indicated,
(the study of origin, cultural development, and
“Teamwork is much more important than the sum of
behavior of person) [Robbins, 2003; Roth, 1993].
the individual” since a nominal engineering team can
Organizational behavior is the core of the behavior
succeed under a well-managed project. In addition,
approach to management [DuBrin, 2002]. The early
Leung Ho Tsoi [1999] concluded “The success of a
scholars in the behavior school were Henry G. Gantt
software project relies very much on a good
and Hugo Munsterberg [George, 1972]. They
management and control system which allows the
believed the study of management should focus on
development to satisfy the project objectives” [p.
the center of human behavior and interpersonal
597]. Scott and Townsend [1994] reported that team
relations [George].
process skills – (a) communication, (b) leadership, (c)
There were three major key movements in
goal setting, (d) cross training, (e) problem
organizational behavior: the Hawthorne studies, the
solving/decision making, (f) conflict resolution are
human relation movement, and the contingency
the essential elements for successful teamwork.
approach to management and leadership [DuBrin,
2.3. Group
2002; Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002]. The study of
Group has appeared in countless organizations,
contingency approach “is derived from the four
corporations, and human societies. A collection of
studies of leadership styles” [DuBrin, p. 10]. This
people in organization is called a group. However,
approach argues that, “there is no single best way
there are two types of group: formal and informal
manage behavior” in order to effectively manage
[Maurer, Shulman, Ruwe, & Becherer, 1995].
humans behavior [Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002, p. 6].
According to Maurer et al. [1995, p. 1411] “Formal
It all depends on the interaction between various
groups are those that give legitimacy by the
2
organization. Informal groups tend to more social in
2.
Help the team move towards these goals.
nature”. Bradford and Cohen [1998] pointed out that
3.
Accomplish tasks given to them.
“Group members represent the areas for which they
4.
Meet deadlines.
are held accountable. …The emphasis in groups is to
5.
Attend team meetings.
run efficient meetings with the aid of strong
6.
Contribute to developing a productive
leadership that focuses discussion.” [p. 129].
atmosphere within the team [p, 282].
“Group” is a general word in the research
2.7. Leadership Theory
literature which includes all forms of teams and work
Leadership in organization consisted of formal
group [Guzzo & Dickson, 1996].
and informal leadership is defined as “the process of
2.4. Project teams
guiding and directing the behavior of people in the
In general, “project teams are time limited.
work environment” [Nelson, 2000, p. 384]. The
They produce one-time outputs, such as a new
influence process of leadership in organization
products or service to be marketed by the company, a
involve a great deal of downward influence
new information system, or a new plant” [Cohen &
(top-down direction) between a leader and followers
Bailey, 1997, p. 242].
(subordinates) [Pearce & Conger, 2003].
2.5. Effectiveness of teams
After reviewing 13 different perspectives of
Cohen and Bailey [1997] classified
leadership, Bass [1990] concluded that the roles of
effectiveness of teams into three major facets from
leadership is as “the focus of group processes, as a
54 journal articles between 1990 and 1996: quality of
personality attribute, as the art of inducing
products (performance), member attitudes (employee
compliance, as an exercise of influence, as a
satisfaction, commitment, and trust), and behavior
particular kind of act, as a form of persuasion, as a
outcomes (absenteeism, turnover, and safety). In
power relation, as an instrument in the attainment of
order to assist and guide management, this paper
goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated
focuses on the individual or group levels of the
role, and as the initiation of structure” [p. 20].
member attitudes in the real software industry.
Leadership is a process of interacting between
people (a leader and followers) and context, and
2.6. The role of team leader and members
Brown and Dobbie [1999] described the roles
producing outcomes (such as trust, customer
of a team leader:
satisfaction, high quality products) [Murphy, 1941].
1.
2.8. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
Coordinate the activities of the team (tracking
progress, scheduling work).
During 1970s, LMX was revived and renamed
2.
Motivate the team.
(from VDL –Vertical Dyad Linkage Theory) by
3.
Ensure the team communicates effectively.
Dansereau, Graen, and Haga [1975], Graen and
4.
Interface with supervisor; arrange meetings
Cashman [1975], and Graen and Wakabayashi
with client when necessary.
[1994]. Leaders develop two different types of
5.
exchange relationships with their followers over time:
Set agendas for meetings [p. 282].
The roles of a team member include:
in-group and out-group relationships. Unlike
1.
traditional leadership model, leaders apply almost
Help to set the team goals (project goals, task
allocations).
similar styles to all of the followers. The members
3
with in-group relationships are usually trusted and
leadership focuses on distribution of individual to
empowered by the leader. They “tend to land
subordinates and top-to-down hierarchical influence
desirable assignments, enjoy considerable autonomy,
(one-way influence). However, Sivasubramaniam, et
participate in decision making, and receive the lion’s
al. [2002] indicated that “Team-level leadership is
share of resource” [Sweeney & McFarlin, 2002, p.
similar to individual-level leadership in that the
183]. There are three dimensions of relationships
functional relationships hypothesized at the
between leader and followers: fairness or
individual level are expected to be ‘isomorphic’ with
organizational justice [Scandura, 1999], trust [Dirks,
the next level” (p. 68). In summary, leadership within
2000], and ethics [Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999].
a team presupposes that all team members are able to
2.9 Shared leadership
contribute to each other in terms of leading.
Shared leadership is different than traditional
Team transformational leadership based on
leadership. The definition of shared leadership is “a
Bass’s [Bass & Avolio, 1995] model includes
dynamic, interactive influence process among
idealized influence (II), idealized behaviors (IB),
individuals in groups for which the objective is to
inspirational motivation (IM), intellectual stimulation
lead one another to achievement of group or
(IS), and individualized consideration (IC) [Avolio,
organizational goals or both” [Pearce & Conger,
et al., 2003].
2003, p. 1].
2.11. Team Empowerment
2.10. Team level Transformational
Leadership
Team empowerment has four dimensions:
choice, meaningfulness, competence, and process
Although there are various types and
[Kirkman & Rosen, 1997]. Furthermore, Gorn and
definitions of leadership, leadership typically is a
Kanungo [1980] revealed that the more meaningful
process of social influence for a particular purpose
an employee's job was, the more satisfied the
[Barge, 1996].Team transformational leadership is
employee was with his or her job. Naturally,
one type of team leadership [Avolio, Jung, Murry,
employees will find more meaning in their jobs when
Sivasubramaniam, & Garger, 2003]. They describe
the scope of their activities is large [Griffin, 1991],
team leadership can be described as occurring when
which is often the case with empowered work teams
“all members of the team collectively influence each
[Wellins et al., 1991]. Thomas and Velthouse [1990]
other toward accomplishing its goals” based upon
defined psychological empowerment as intrinsic
Team-member exchange (TMX) [Avolio, et al., 2003,
motivation manifested in four cognitions reflecting
p. 145; Sivasubramaniam, et al., 2002] but
an individual's orientation to his or her work role:
characterizing a team rather than a dyad . The term
meaning, competence, self-determination, and
“team leadership”, is also called “shared leadership,
impact.
peer leadership, or collective leadership” [Avolio, et
2.12. Team trust
al., 2003; Sivasubramaniam, et al., 2002]. Team
Team trust is a collective attribute which
leadership is different from traditional leadership in
involves multiple trustees within team members
that leader behavior is shared by all members if the
[Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998]. It is also called
team inter-actively (two-way influence) and multiple
collective trust. The definition of team trust is “the
interacting [Pearce & Conger, 2003]. Traditional
belief that an individual or group (a) makes
4
good-faith efforts to behave in accordance with any
commitment to the team, workplace, division, and/or
commitments both explicit and implicit, (b) is honest
corporation” [Sano, 2002, p. 941]. The team
in whatever negotiations preceded such commitment
commitment has become one of important levels of
and (c) does not take excessive advantage of another
commitment. Team commitment is used “to describe
even when the opportunity is available” [Cummings
very different constructs, experiences, degrees of
& Bromley, 1996, p. 303]. There are three stages of
involvement and motivation” [Hopfl, 2001, p. 90].
trust building: deterrence-based trust,
Moreover, based upon field study from 114
knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust.
technical people within a consulting firm conducted
2.13. Job Satisfaction
by Vegt and his associates [2000], the cross-sectional
Tymon and his associates [Thomas & Tymon,
study found that both individual-level task
1994; Tymon, 1988] and Spreitzer and her colleagues
interdependence and job complexity were positive
[1997] discovered a link between empowerment and
related to individual job satisfaction, team
job satisfaction at the individual level of analysis.
satisfaction, job commitment, and team commitment.
Besides, people working in teams had higher levels
Moreover, Scott, and Townsend [1994] found that
of job satisfaction than workforce working in
team commitment was correlated to team
traditional settings within the same company
performance. In addition, the aggressiveness toward
[Cordery, Mueller, & Smith, 1991; Wall, Kemp,
other people and the value employees place on
Jackson, & Clegg, 1986]. Job satisfaction consists of
autonomy were negatively correlated to team
intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction [Weiss, England,
commitment.
& Lofquist, 1967]. The facets of challenge,
3.1.Hypotheses
achievement, and ability utilization are part of the
Figure 1 depicts the proposed relationships
intrinsic satisfaction which concerns with direct job
among team transformational leadership, team trust,
experience. Additionally, extrinsic satisfaction is
job satisfaction, and team commitment in
comprised of supervision, company policies and
development teams as an input-process-output (IPO)
practices, and compensation which are related to
model. It integrates into one research model team
different people attitudes toward work environmental
transformational leadership, empowerment, trust, job
factors [Santana & Robey, 1994].
satisfaction, and commitment that were never
2.14. Team Commitment
previously examined together in modeling the
Business enterprisers are facing the
interactions among team members as a whole.
tremendous pressure of globalization and
The hypotheses below articulate the expected
competition, a more flexible and adaptive
interrelationships among the variables, as illustrated
organization has shifted to a team-based structure.
in Figure 1:
Recently, the research concentrates not only on
Hypothesis H1a: Team transformational
organizational level, but also commitment at the team.
leadership is related to team empowerment in
The definition of team commitment is “the relative
software development teams.
strength of an individual’s identification with, and
Hypothesis H1b: Team transformational
involvement in, a particular team” [Bishop & Scott,
leadership is related to team trust in software
2000, p. 439]. “Effective teamwork is based on a
development teams.
5
H1a
Team
Empowerment
Team
Job
Satisfaction
H2a
Transformation
Leadership
H2b
H1b
H3
Team
Commitment
Team Trust
Input
Process
Output
Figure 1. Research model in software development team.
Hypothesis H2a: Team empowerment is related
Team transformational leadership (TTL) is
to job satisfaction in software development teams.
assessed with the Team Multifactor Leadership
Hypothesis H2b: Team trust is related to job
Questionnaire (TMLQ) [Sivasubramaniam, et al.,
satisfaction in software development teams.
2002].
3.4.2. Team empowerment
Hypothesis H3: The job satisfaction is related
to team commitment in software development teams.
This research measures team empowerment
3.2. Level of Analysis
with two scales: an 8-item potency scale [Guzzo,
The level of analysis is the individual level of
Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993] and 18-item
analysis. Characteristically, respondents can be
empowerment inventory (EI) [Thomas & Tymon,
arranged in hierarchical order. For example, the
1993, 1994]. Three of the four EI dimensions:
organization, the group, and the individuals are
meaningfulness, choice (autonomy), and progress
moving from the macro level to the micro level. The
(impact) [Guzzo, et al., 1993] are used.
higher levels (such as the group level) incorporate of
3.4.3. Team trust
lower levels, for example individual respondents
Since "trust emerges in the team as members
[Yammarino & Jung, 1998].
learn from their success and failures to rely on one
3.3 Scales and Measurement of Variables
another"[Mayo, Meindl, & Paster, 2003, p. 211],
team trust is defined as each team member’s
For all scales a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 5 = "strongly agree", 3 = “moderately”, to 1 =
perception of other members’ abilities, integrity, and
"strongly disagree" provides the response format
benevolence [Jarvenpaa, et al., 1998].
except the TMLQ with a 5-point Likert scale ranging
3.4.4. Job satisfaction
from 5 = "frequently or always", 3 = “sometimes”, to
Team level job satisfaction is measured with a
1 = "not at all".
4-item assessment developed by Thomas and Tymon
3.4 Measurement
3.4.1. Team transformational leadership
[1994].
3.4.5. Team commitment
6
for IB, α = .83 for IS, α = .82 for IM, and α = .84 for
A variety of assessments of team-level team
commitment exist in the previous literature, such as
IC.
Shapiro and Kirkman’s [1999] 3-item questionnaire,
4.2. Team empowerment
Alutto and Hrebiniak’s [1975] 4-item questionnaire,
Figure 3 presents the confirmatory factor
March and Simon’s [1958] 5-item assessment, Rossy
analysis results for team empowerment. The factor
and Archibald [1992], and Bishop and Scott’s [2000]
loadings for team empowerment were .55 for
8-item assessment. However, Bishop and Scott
meaningfulness, .58 for potency, .81 for progress (as
(2000) modified portions of the Organization
impact), and .61 for choice (as autonomy), as
Commitment Questionnaires (OCQ) short form
depicted in Figure 3. Reliability estimates for the
(Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979) to assess team
facets of team empowerment (α) was .96 for
level commitment. It is defined as “the relative
meaningfulness, α = .92 for potency, α = .92 for
strength of an individual’s identification with, and
progress (as impact), and α = .87 for choice (as
involvement in, a particular team” (Bishop & Scott,
autonomy).
2000, p. 439).
4.3. Team trust
3.5. Criteria for acceptance / significance.
The latent variable, team trust, used a 5-item
The path analysis is used to test the
scale. The levels of factor loadings for each item
hypotheses because of its capability to evaluate
appear in Figure 4. All items have factor loadings of
causal relationships [Loehlin, 1987; Pedhazur, 1982].
.79 or greater. The Cronbach’s alpha of team trust
The level of significance for testing the hypothesis is
was .88.
p = .05. If the null hypothesis (Ho) is not rejected,
4.4. Team job satisfaction
this indicates that the hypothesis is accepted within
Team job satisfaction was measured by using a
5% level of significance. Although there is 5%
4-item job satisfaction scale. The factor loadings are
possibility that the null hypothesis is wrong, the
all .91 or higher, as depicted in Figure 5. A reliability
researcher has 95% of confidence that the null
estimate for job satisfaction (α) was .94.
hypothesis is accurate.
4.5. Team commitment
4. Statistic Tests
This research measures team commitment with
4.1. Transformational leadership
an 8-item team commitment scale. Figure 6 lists all
Figure 2 presents the confirmatory factor
factor loadings for the team commitment items, all
analysis of team transformational leadership items.
exceeding .70. The reliability analysis (α) of team
Each of the five facets of team transformational
commitment was .92.
leadership exceeded the criterion of .5. The
5. Summary of Findings
Cronbach’s alphas for the team transformational
leadership dimensions all exceeded the conventional
minimum requirement of .70, α = .85 for IA, α = .79
7
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Team Transformational Leadership Model
1
es2q21
.30
.02
S2Q21Option5
.89
S2Q16Option5
1.00
1
1
es2q16
.48
.70
1
es2q11
e1
Idealized Attributes
S2Q11Option5
.37
1
es2q6
S2Q6Option5
.33
.86
1
es2q1
.83
S2Q1Option5
.62
S2Q22Option5
.54
1
es2q17
S2Q17Option5
1.30
1
S2Q12Option5
.36
e2
1.00
.89
.91
1
es2q12
.79
.03
1
es2q22
Idealized Behaviors
.73
1
es2q7
S2Q7Option5
.35
es2q2
.20
1
es2q23
S2Q23Option5
.48
1
es2q18
S2Q18Option5
.39
1
.88
.71
Inspirational Motivation
S2Q13Option5
.25
e3
1.00
.84
1
es2q13
.79
1
es2q8
S2Q8Option5
.50
1.00
.89
S2Q2Option5
.51
Transformational Leadership
.71
1
.55
.81
.60
1
es2q3
.36
S3Q3Option5
1
es2q24
S2Q24Option5
.24
1
es2q19
S2Q19Option5
.45
.58
S2Q5Option5
1
1.00
1.00
Intellectual Stimulation
e5
es2q15
.37
1
1
.29
.82
1
.54
es2q10
1
S2Q15Option5
Individualized Consideration
.59
es2q4
S2Q10Option5
.46
S2Q14Option5
S2Q9Option5
.40
1
.84
1
es2q9
es2q5
.47
.72
e4
.77
1
es2q14
1
.10
.97
.63
S2Q20Option5
es2q20
.64
.75
1
S2Q25Option5
S2Q4Option5
es2q25
.50
Figure 2. The confirmatory factor analysis of team transformational leadership.
Concerning the SEM analysis, AMOS 6.0
relationship between the job satisfaction and the job
software was used to examine the research
commitment (r= .18, p= .04).
hypotheses and research model for fit in the sample
5.1. Conclusions
data. The results (Figure 7) using path analysis
The above summary demonstrates that the
indicate that team transformational leadership is
findings of this study contribute to the body of
strongly positively related to team empowerment
empirical literature regarding the individual attributes
(r= .86, p= .00) and team trust (r= .82, p= .00) in
of, and attitudes leadership and team qualities in
software development teams. In addition, team
software development teams in the United States.
empowerment (r= .27, p=. 55) and team trust (r= .29,
The results in figure 7 indicate that team
p= .55) are not related to job satisfaction in software
transformational leadership is strongly, positively
development teams. There is a slight positive
related to team empowerment and team trust in the
software development teams. Both job satisfaction
8
and the team commitment also have a positive direct
relationship. These finding have a great deal of
applicability in the workplace.
5.2. Recommendations
1.
This study could be applied to other fields such
as software project managers, hardware or software
9
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Team Empowerment Model
1
es3q6
S3Q6Option5
.32
es3q5
es3q4
1
1
S3Q2Option5
.88
1
1
1.00
S3Q12Option5
.34
1
e2
.86
1
es3q9
.58
.82
S3Q8Option5
.16
1.00
1
es3q7
.92
S3Q7Option5
.17
1
es3q20
S3Q17Option5
.10
.90
1
es3q16
Progress (Impact)
1.00
1
es3q17
.83
S3Q18Option5
.11
.65
S3Q16Option5
.09
.78
1
es3q15
S3Q15Option5
.12
1
es3q26
.68
S3Q23Option5
.27
.95
S3Q22Option5
.39
1
es3q21
Choice (Autonomy)
1.00
1
es3q22
1
S3Q24Option5
.50
1
es3q23
.39
e4
.53
S3Q25Option5
.69
1
es3q24
.69
S3Q26Option5
.59
1
es3q25
.81
1
1
es3q18
.12
e3
.60
S3Q19Option5
.68
Empowerment
.66
S3Q20Option5
.54
1
es3q19
Potency
S3Q9Option5
.33
1
es3q8
1
.87
S3Q10Option5
.34
.55
.16
.81
S3Q11Option5
.20
1
es3q10
.91
S3Q1Option5
.02
es3q11
Meaningfulness
S3Q3Option5
.06
es3q12
1
1.00
1
.05
es3q2
e1
.88
S3Q4Option5
.15
es3q3
es3q1
S3Q5Option5
.22
.26
.89
.80
1
S3Q21Option5
.15
1.08
Figure 3. A confirmatory factory analysis for team empowerment.
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Team Trust Model
es4q1
1
S4Q1Option5
.29
es4q2
1
.95
S4Q2Option5
.18
.92
.45
es4q3
1
S4Q3Option5
.79
Team Trust
.35
.83
es4q4
es4q5
1
.23
1
S4Q4Option5
1.00
S4Q5Option5
.25
Figure 4. A confirmatory factory analysis for team trust.
10
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Job Satisfaction Model
es4q6
1
S4Q6Option5
.59
.91
es4q7
1
S4Q7Option5
.22
.95
1.77
Job Satisfaction
.94
es4q8
1
S4Q8Option5
.33
1.00
es4q9
1
S4Q9Option5
.18
Figure 5. A confirmatory factory analysis for team job satisfaction.
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Team Commitment Model
1
es4q10
.89
es4q11
.97
1
S4Q10Option5
S4Q11Option5
.71
es4q12
1
.27
1.00
S4Q12Option5
.75
es4q13
es4q14
1
.47
1
.21
.79
S4Q13Option5
Team Commitment
.89
.83
S4Q14Option5
.87
es4q15
1
.21
S4Q15Option5
.70
.98
1
es4q16
.46
es4q17
.21
1
S4Q16Option5
S4Q17Option5
Figure 6. A confirmatory factory analysis for team commitment.
system administration, or IT departments.
conduct other survey media for enlarging and
2.
encouraging the size of respondents.
The sample size is too small to represent the
software publishing industry. A larger sample size is
Potential respondents could be concern the
required for SEM technique to calculate the proposed
internet security threat or against company policy in
relationships [Kline, 1998]. The suggestion is to
answering the online survey. Using traditional
self-administered questionnaires with return address
11
A path diagram of Research Model
es3q24
es3q23
.23
1
es3q22
.14
1
Potency
Meaningfulness
.18
1
Choice (Autonomy)
Progress (Impact)
.76
.72
es3q21
.06
1
1.00
.96
Empowerment
S4Q10Option5
.90
1
es4q10
.98
1
1
S4Q11Option5
D2
.09
es2q5
Idealized Attributes
D5
D4
1
1
.91
1
es2q10
.75
1.63
.27
1.00
.16
.80
1
es2q15
.13
.18
.48
Transformational Leadership
.89
Intellectual Stimulation
1.00
.71
.96
es4q13
.22
1
es4q14
.20
1
S4Q15Option5
es4q15
.46
1
.96
1
1
S4Q13Option5
S4Q14Option5
Inspirational Motivation
.24
es4q12
.47
.76
.90
TeamCommitment
Job Satisfaction
1
es2q20
es2q25
1
S4Q12Option5
1.01
.80
Idealized Behaviors
.17
es4q11
.28
.71
.14
.86
1
.29
.82
Individualized Consideration
.91
.95
S4Q16Option5
1.00
.95
es4q16
.20
S4Q17Option5
1
.12
es4q17
D3
S4Q6Option5
1
Chi-square = 684.365 (df = 294)
p = .000
GFI = .621, AGFI = .548
CFI = .763, RMSEA = .144
Team Trust
.59
.99
S4Q1Option5
es4q1
es4q7
.23
1
1
es4q9
es4q8
.32
.18
1
es4q4
es4q3
.34
1
es4q6
S4Q9Option5
S4Q5Option5
1
1
es4q2
.19
S4Q4Option5
S4Q3Option5
1
1
S4Q8Option5
1.00
.81
.82
S4Q2Option5
1
.26
.93
S4Q7Option5
es4q5
.26
.25
Figure 7. The path diagram results for research model.
appears outside when folding properly instead of
Leadership. (pp. 143-172). Thousand Oaks,
on-line survey could be better than the online survey.
CA: Sage Publications.
2.
5.3. Further Study
1.
This study could be conducted in a single large
Barge, J. K. (1996). Leaderships Skills and the
Dialectice of Leadership in Group Decision
software publisher with documents on the history of
Making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole.
the company for case study.
(Eds.), Communication and group decision
2.
making (pp. 55-80). (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks,
This study could be deployed in other countries
or regions for comparing and contrasting.
3.
CA: SAGE Publications.
The population could sample the university
3.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics,
students majoring in computer science, information
Character, and Authentic Transactional
system, or other related.
Leadership Behavior. Leadership Quarterly,
4.
10(2), 181-217.
This study could examine mediator variables
such as team empowerment, team trust, and job
4.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. D. (2000). An
satisfaction.
Examination of Organizational and Team
References
Commitment in a Self-Directed Team
1.
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., Murry, W.,
Environment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Sivasubramaniam, N., & Garger, J. (2003).
85(3), 439-450.
Assessing Shared Leadership: Development of
5.
Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1998). Power
a Team Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
up: transforming organizations through shared
In C.L. Pearce & Jay A. Conger (Eds.), Shared
leadership. New York: John Wiley.
Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of
6.
Brown, J., & Dobbie, G. (1999). Supporting
and Evaluating Team Dynamics in Group
12
Projects. The Proceedings of the Thirtieth
Business and Management (pp. 2610-2616).
Sigcse Technical Symposium on Computer
(2nd ed.). (Vols. 1-8). London: Thomson
Science Education March 24 - 28, New
Learning.
Orleans, LA, 281-285
7.
8.
9.
15.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What
Redesign on Employee Perceptions, Attitudes,
Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness
and Behaviors: a Long-Term Investigation.
Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive
Academy of Management Journal, 34,
Suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239-290.
425-435.
Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M.
16.
(1998). Enabling Software Development Team
Autonomous Group Working: a Longitudinal
Performance During Requirements. Definition:
Field Study. Academy of Management Journal,
a Behavioral versus Technical Approach.
34, 464-476.
Information System Research 9(2), 101–125.
Cummings, L. L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The
17.
12.
Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on
and Validation. In Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T.
Performance and Effectiveness. Annual
R. (Eds.), (1996). Trust in Organizations:
Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338.
18.
(Ed.), (2001). Organizational Behavior
Publications.
Reassessed (pp. 86-103). London: Sage
Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in Leadership and
Publishtions.
19.
Howard, A. (2001). Software Engineering
Basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Project Management. Communication of
85(6), 1004-1012.
ACM, 44(5), 23–24.
DuBrin, A. (2002). Fundamentals of
20.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E.
Organizational Behavior. (2nd ed.). Australia
(1998). Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Thomson
Trust in Global Virtual Team. Journal of
Learning.
Management Information Systems, 14(4),
George, C. S. (1972). The History of
29-64.
21.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and Practice of
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The
Gorn, G. J., & Kanungo, R. N. (1980). Job
Guilford Press.
Involvement and Motivation: Are Intrinsically
14.
Hopfl, H. (2001). Motivation. In E. Wilson.
302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Management Thought (2nd ed.). Englewood
13.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996).
Organizational Trust inventory: Development
Team Performance: Evidence from NCAA
11.
Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J.G., & Faraj, S.
(1991). Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of
Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp.
10.
Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of Work
22.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1997). A Model
Motivated Managers More Job Involved?
of Work Team Empowerment. In R. W.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore. (Eds.), Research
Performance, 26, 265-277.
in Organizational Change and Development
Graham, P. (2002). Human Relations. In M.
(pp. 131-167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Warner. (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of
13
23.
24.
Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent Variable Models.
33.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Management: A Unified Framework. Reading,
Maurer, G. J., Shulman, M. J., Ruwe. L. M., &
MA: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Becherer, C. R. (1995). Encyclopedia of
25.
34.
27.
(Eds.), (2002). International Encyclopedia of
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Paster, J. C.
Business and Management. (2nd ed.). (Vols.
(2003). Shared Leadership in Work Teams: a
1-8). London: Thomson Learning.
35.
Systems Development Effects on Job
Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership
Satisfaction of Systems Professionals.
(pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Proceedings of the 1994 Computer Personnel
Publications.
Research Conference on Reinventing Is:
Nelson, D. L. (2000). Organizational Behavior:
Managing Information Technology in
Foundations, Realities, and Challenges. (3rd
Changing Organizations: Managing
ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College
Information Technology in Changing
Publisher.
Organizations, 184-191.
Newstrom, J. W., & Davis, K. (2002).
36.
development: Processes and performance. IBM
Work. (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Systems Journal, 37, 4, 552-568.
37.
31.
Why Some Succeed and Others Fail.
Those Years Ago. In C. L. Pearce & J. A.
HRMagazine, 39(8), 62-68.
38.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Murry, W. D., Avolio,
the Hows and Whys of Leadership. (pp. 1-18).
B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A Longitudinal
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Model of the Effects of Team Leadership and
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple Regression in
Group Potency on Group Performance. Group
Behavior Research. (2nd ed.). New York:
& Organization Management, 27(1), 66-96.
39.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S.
Rasch, R.H., & Henry L. Tosi. (1992). Factors
W. (1997). A Dimensional Analysis of the
Affecting Software Developers' Performance:
Relationship Between Psychological
An Integrated Approach. MIS Quarterly, 16(3),
Empowerment and Effectiveness, Satisfaction,
395–413.
and Strain. Journal of Management, 23,
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Organizational
679-704.
Behavior. (10th ed.). NJ: Upper Saddle River.
32.
Scott, K. D., & Townsend, A. (1994). Teams:
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). All
Holtz, Rinehart, & Winston.
30.
Sawyer, S., & Guinan, P. J. (1998). Software
Organizational Behavior Human Behavior at
Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership: Reframing
29.
Santana, M., & Robey, D. (1994). Controlling
J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared Leadership:
Higher Education.
28.
Sano, Y. (2002). Commitment. In M. Warner.
Business. Detroit, MI: Gale Research.
Social Network Approach. In C. L. Pearce, &
26.
Royce, W. (1998). Software Project
40.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (2002).
Roth, W. F. (1993). The Evolution of
Organizational Behavior: Solutions for
Management Theory: Past, Present, Future.
Management. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Orefield, PA: Roth & Associates.
41.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. Jr. (1993).
Empowerment Inventory. NY: XICOM.
14
A Confirmatory Factory Analysis for Team Trust Model
1
es4q1
S4Q1Option5
.29
42.
1
es4q2
.18
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G. Jr. (1994).
Quality, Productivity, and Participation. San
Does Empowerment Always.95
Work:
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
S4Q2Option5
Understanding
the Role of Intrinsic Motivation
50.
and Personal Interpretation. .92
Journal of
Management Systems, 6, 1-13.
Yammarino, F. J., & Jung, D. I. (1998). Asian
Americans and leadership: A Levels of
Analysis Perspective. The Journal of Applied
.45
.79
Velthouse,
43. 1 Thomas, K. W., &
B. A. (1990).
Team Trust
es4q3
S4Q3Option5
.35
Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: An
Behavioral Science, 34(1), 47-68.
"Interpretive" Model of .83
Intrinsic Task
es4q4
1
.23
44.
Motivation. Academy of Management Review,
1.00
15,S4Q4Option5
666-681.
Tsoi, L. H. (1999). A Framework for
Management Software Project Development.
1
es4q5
.25
Proceedings
of the 1999 ACM Symposium on
S4Q5Option5
Applied Computing, San Antonio, TX USA,
February 28 - March
2, 1999, analysis
593-597. for team trust.
Figure 4. A confirmatory
factory
45.
Tymon, W. G. Jr. (1988). An empirical
investigation of a cognitive model of
empowerment. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia.
46.
Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Vliert, E. (2000). Team
Members' Affective Responses to Patterns of
Intragroup Interdependence and Job
Complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4),
633-655.
47.
Wall, T. D., Kemp, N. J., Jackson, P. R., &
Clegg, C. W. (1986). Outcomes of
Autonomous Workgroups: A Long Term Field
Experiment. Academy of Management Journal,
29, 280-304.
48.
Weiss, D. J., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H.
(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in
Vocational Rehabilitation, No. 22). MS:
University of Minnesota Press.
49.
Wellins, R. S., Byham, W., & Wilson, J.
(1991). Empowered Teams: Creating
Self-Directed Work Groups that Improve
15