DETERMINING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLES IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT VIRTUAL TEAMS, A QUANTITATIVE CORRELATIVE STUDY

by

Michael A. Morales

Copyright 2015

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Management in Organizational Leadership with a Specialization in Information Systems Technology

University of Phoenix

ABSTRACT

As the technology enables organizations both in the private and public sectors to operate

virtually, it challenges leaders to motivate teams to perform at high levels. Understanding

which leadership styles work best in the virtual environment is key to motivating high

performance teams. Leaders need education and training to transition to the virtual

environment. The general problem is that traditional workplace team leaders do not have

the skills needed to lead employees in the virtual workplace. This problem negatively

affects virtual team performance. Managers of existing and new organizations that adopt

the virtual team model need to know which leadership styles are most effective in

managing these virtual project teams. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study

is to research the effectiveness of different leadership styles on virtual team performance

in the software development environment. This study solicited participants through social

media that fell within the study’s population of virtual team leaders and followers. The

study’s population consisted of software development virtual team members and leaders,

and members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering

Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. Data for this study

was collected using electronic surveys to accommodate the geographically dispersed

population and make use of the participant’s access to the Internet and computing

devices. The finding showed a significant positive correlation between transformational

and transactional leadership and organizational effectiveness. This study showed that

participants with higher transformational and transactional leadership scores tended to

believe that their organization was more effective.

iii

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to my family whose support never wavered throughout the

countless nights and weekends that I was missing in action while working on my classes

or my dissertation. In particular, this study is dedicated to my wife Jane, who was a

constant source of inspiration and moral support throughout the process.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First I would like to acknowledge my committee chair Dr. Mark Anderson for

letting me benefit from all of his experience, knowledge and wisdom. I also thank him for

all of the insightful feedback he has provided me with. I would also like to thank my

committee members Drs. Timothy Clifton and David Filer. They both have provided me

with valuable feedback along the way. Prior to becoming members of my committee,

Dr. Timothy Clifton was my instructor for the Organizational Theory and Design class

ORG-716 and Dr. David Filer was my instructor for the Knowledge Worker Information

Systems IST-721 class. Both of these classes had relevance to what would eventually

become my dissertation topic.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1

Background ....................................................................................................................1

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................3

Purpose Statement ..........................................................................................................4

Significance of the Study ...............................................................................................5

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................6

Research Questions and Hypotheses .............................................................................8

Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................10

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................12

Assumptions .................................................................................................................14

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations .........................................................................14

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................17

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................18

Document Sources .......................................................................................................19

Historical Overview .....................................................................................................20

Virtual Team Benefits ..................................................................................................22

Virtual Team Challenges .............................................................................................26

Leadership Styles and Performance .............................................................................33

Appropriateness of Research Design ...........................................................................45

vi

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................47

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................52

Research Method and Design Appropriateness ...........................................................52

Quantitative Research ..................................................................................................53

Research Questions ......................................................................................................54

Population ....................................................................................................................54

Sample Framing ...........................................................................................................55

Informed Consent.........................................................................................................55

Confidentiality .............................................................................................................56

Data Collection ............................................................................................................56

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................56

MLQ-5X Rater Form Survey ......................................................................................57

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness Survey ....................................................59

Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................59

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................62

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................63

Instrument Reliability ..................................................................................................63

Population and Sample Selection.................................................................................64

Descriptive Correlational Research .............................................................................65

Demographics ..............................................................................................................66

Composite Scores.........................................................................................................67

Data Analysis Methods ................................................................................................68

vii

Research Question No. 1..............................................................................................69

Research Question No. 2..............................................................................................70

Research Question No. 3..............................................................................................70

Supplemental Analyses ................................................................................................71

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................79

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................81

Chapter 5: Conclusions, and Recommendations ...............................................................83

Leadership Theories .....................................................................................................84

Comparison of Findings to the Literature ....................................................................84

Analysis of Findings and Data .....................................................................................86

Research Questions ......................................................................................................87

Limitations ...................................................................................................................88

Delimitations ................................................................................................................89

Implications..................................................................................................................90

Significance for Leadership and Software Development Virtual teams ......................92

Recommendations ........................................................................................................92

Future Research Suggestions .......................................................................................93

Chapter Summary ........................................................................................................95

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................96

References ..........................................................................................................................98

Appendix A: Instrumentation ..........................................................................................116

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form .............................................................................121

viii

Appendix C: Permission To Use Instrument ...................................................................122

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Productivity in virtual teams versus collocated teams: Studies reporting

conflicting results ...................................................................................................... 40

Table 2: Conflict in virtual versus collocated teams: Studies reported conflicting

results ........................................................................................................................ 41

Table 3: Definitions of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership

Styles in the MLQ-5X ............................................................................................... 58

Table 4: Description of the sample (n = 20) ..................................................................... 66

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for Composite Scores (n = 20) ......................................... 68

Table 6: Pearson Correlations Among Composite Scores (n = 20) .................................. 69

Table 7: Comparisons Based on Gender (n = 20) ............................................................. 72

Table 8: Comparisons Based on Race (n = 20) ................................................................. 74

Table 9: Comparisons Based on Education (n = 20) ......................................................... 76

Table 10: Pearson Correlations between Composite Mean Scores and Age, Years with

Current Employer, and Years in Software Development (n = 20) ............................. 78

x

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Software development teams normally perform software development for large projects.

Traditionally, the team members work together at the same location. However, the ability to

access the Internet from anywhere enables software developers to perform their development

work from geographically distributed locations.

Chapter 1 provides background information on geographically distributed teams also

known as virtual teams and the leadership challenges they create. Chapter 1 also provides the

theoretical framework relating to team leadership, and the study’s research problem, purpose,

significance, and nature. The research questions, assumption, scope, and limitations of the study

are also discussed.

Background

Teams can exist that integrate groups working in different locations, different time zones,

and different cultures. These changes have implications on how leaders form teams, organize

work, measure individual and group performance, reward team members, and make decisions.

They also affect how teams communicate, share knowledge, and identify and resolve issues

(Geurts, 2005). The level of team virtualness can vary from teams that have a central office and

team members who travel or telecommute several days a week to completely virtual teams that

never meet face-to-face and communicate and work entirely through computer media.

Regardless of the team’s level of virtualness, virtual teams need leadership to motivate team

members to achieve higher performance levels. Leadership mediated by technology, although

1

2

likely focused on the same performance and relationship enhancing outcomes may take a

different form because of changes in the availability of information, dispersion of the team, and

permanence of the communications (Avolio & Kahai, 2003; Avolio, Kahai, & Dodge, 2001).

Geographically dispersed teams work together through electronic means with minimal

face-to-face interaction. Often GDTs consist of cross-functional members working on highly

interdependent tasks and sharing responsibility for team outcomes. The deployment of GDTs in

organizations requires some level of team-based innovation to leverage and integrate product,

process, or business strategy (Malhotra, Majchrzak, & Rosen 2007). Increasingly, entire

organizations are becoming geographically dispersed. The leaders of these organizations will

need to understand how to lead these dispersed organizations, despite the challenges. Virtual

teams, whose members are geographically dispersed and cross-functional yet work on highly

interdependent tasks, present unique leadership challenges (Malhotra, et al., 2007).

Leaders of virtual teams have to adopt different leadership styles and apply them as

needed (Oertig & Buergi, 2006). Unfortunately, most organizations have not provided training

in the area of leading virtual teams. Recent research indicates that only a small number of

organizations have created specialized training programs to prepare virtual leaders and virtual

team members (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn (2006). As the technology enables organizations

both in the private and public sectors are operate virtually, it challenges leaders to motivate

teams to perform at high levels. Understanding which leadership styles work best in the virtual

environment will be key to motivating high performance teams. Leaders will need education and

training to transition to the virtual environment. Recent research indicates that only a small

2

3

number of organizations have created specialized training programs to prepare virtual team

leaders and virtual team members (Rosen, et al., 2006).

Problem Statement

The general problem is that traditional workplace team leaders do not have the skills

needed to lead employees in the virtual workplace. This problem negatively affects virtual team

performance. Managers of existing and new organizations that adopt the virtual team model need

to know which leadership styles are most effective in managing these virtual project teams. For

example, project team leaders will no longer have the luxury of ‘face time’ to provide

supervision to employees or to observe employee productivity simply by walking by his or her

desk to ask for project status. Lack of face-to-face contact was more problematic and many

missed what they called the office atmosphere and the opportunities presented by striking up a

conversation in the cafeteria or hallway (Oertig & Buergi, 2006). Virtual team leaders will need

to know which leadership style will be most effective in the virtual office environment. Many

organizations have failed to provide leadership training that specifically addresses the issues that

arise in the virtual office environment. These issues include lack of clearly defined roles for

team members, poor team communications, team members who work at different times or time

zones, teams that exist only as long as the project exists, team members who have never met

face-to-face and have not developed trust in their work relationships.

The specific problem is that virtual team leaders who fail to communicate the

organization’s mission and goals, risk not achieving the organization’s goals and a loss of

productivity. This result would negate any benefits derived from the virtual team model.

3

4

Virtuality adds another layer of complexity to teamwork. They have created a rich training

agenda, for example; How to use the software to enhance team performance, How to manage the

anonymous environment, and when to use it, social protocol for virtual teams and teaching

common cultural values (Cascio, 2000). The population for this study consists of software

development virtual team members and leaders, and members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. These

globally dispersed virtual team members and leaders will provide a statistically significant

sample of virtual teams in the software development industry. All participants had access to the

Internet and were able to answer all survey questions.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study is to research the effectiveness of

different leadership styles on virtual team performance in the software development

environment. Leadership activity such as facilitating team dynamics, team rewards, and so on

signal individual agents to improve process effectiveness and promote process team

accountability and teamwork (Hazy, 2006). This researcher solicited participants through social

media that fell within the study’s population of virtual team leaders and followers. The study’s

population consisted of software development virtual team members and leaders, and members

of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the

LinkedIn Social Network. Electronic surveys collected data for this study to accommodate the

geographically dispersed population and make use of the participant’s access to the Internet and

4

5

computing devices. These surveys gathered data relative to team communication, trust,

motivation, and attitudes toward the team leader’s effectiveness.

Research Method. This research study used the quantitative method. The population

studied were software development virtual team members and leaders, and members of the

Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the

LinkedIn Social Network. The study surveyed the target population using the LinkedIn social

media forums. This study used electronic surveys to accommodate geographically dispersed

participants who make live interviews impracticable. The electronic survey data collection

method also precludes the possibility of the introducing researcher bias into the results of the

study. Research designs contain implicit epistemological values that require the researcher to

remain as separate and detached as possible from the research participants to limit researcher

bias (Duffy & Chenail, 2008). This data collection method also allowed for honest responses

from both team leaders and followers because the responses were anonymous.

Significance of the Study

This research adds to the general body of knowledge of leadership styles and specifically

of leadership styles within a virtual team environment in the software development industry.

While virtual teams are becoming more prevalent, they are not always successful at achieving

their goals. According to a study by Govindarajan and Gupta (2001) only 18% of 70 virtual

teams considered their performance ‘highly successful’ and the remaining 82% fell short of their

intended goals. One-third of the teams in the sample rated their performance as largely

unsuccessful (Govindarajan & Gupta, 2001, p. 63).

5

6

Software development is an industry that lends itself to being conducted anywhere there

is access to the Internet. Global software development is increasingly becoming the normal

practice in the software industry, evidenced by U.S. estimates that the value of the offshore

software development market has increased 25-fold over the past 10 years (Conchúir, Ågerfalk.,

Olsson, & Fitzgerald, 2009). This research study adds to the understanding of what leadership

style is most effective in leading globally dispersed software development teams.

The results of this study also provides information that could improve the survivability

and performance of virtual teams and virtual workers or telecommuters. The results derived

from this study is also applicable to the virtual teams in other industries. Training of virtual team

leaders can benefit from learning which leadership styles are most effective.

Virtual teams have the computer-mediated communications and collaborative technology

needed to succeed. However, failure to provide appropriate leadership may cause the virtual

team to be less effective or even fail to meet its performance goals. Virtual team leaders need to

develop new leadership skills to overcome member feelings of isolation, build team cohesion,

establish norms of collaboration and knowledge sharing, and motivate team members to make a

major commitment to the team’s mission (Malhotra, et al, 2007).

Nature of the Study

This research study used the quantitative method to measure whether there is a

relationship between the leadership style used and the performance of virtual teams. The

population studied consists of geographically distributed software development virtual team

6

7

members and leaders, and members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering

Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network.

This study surveyed the target population using Software Engineering

Productivity/SEPforum.net forum of the LinkedIn social media network. This study collected

interview responses through electronic means to accommodate geographically dispersed

participants. This study used the quantitative method and correlational design and required the

analysis of survey responses from virtual and geographically dispersed team members. The

analysis consists of taking the data apart to determine individual responses and putting it together

into themes to summarize it.

The survey questions ascertained the participant’s view of their team effectiveness and

which leadership style was used. Similarly, Dani, Burns, Backhouse, and Kochhar (2006)

measured the relationship between the perceived level of trust and the organizational culture in

virtual organizations by surveying a random sample of 100 engineers, combined with focus

group discussions. This study used a survey which includes multiple choice as well as open-

ended questions to allow better understanding of the views of the participants toward their

leadership and the virtual work environment.

The use of Internet surveys, lessen the possibility of introducing researcher bias into the

delivery of the questions to the participants. Additionally, interviewers do not subject

participants to researcher body language or other verbal and non-verbal cues. This data

collection method also allowed honest responses from both team leaders and followers because

their responses were anonymous.

7

8

Research Questions and Hypotheses

As a result of advancements in communications and collaborative technology, distributed

or virtual teams are quickly becoming the norm rather than the exception. It is imperative that

the leaders of these virtual teams understand how best to lead team members that they rarely if

ever have face-to-face time with. This study proposes that even in the virtual environment there

is usually one person who leads the team and is responsible for its performance and meeting its

goals successfully.

In the software development industry, the team leader is usually a program or project

manager. The program or project manager needs to understand the leadership styles required to

motivate virtual team members to achieve the team’s goals. In some cases, these teams start their

existence as collocated teams changing the dynamics of how team members interact with each

other and with the leadership. In other cases, the team spends its entire existence with its

members geographically dispersed. In the latter case, the team members may not have known

each other prior to the team’s formation and have not been able to development trust in their

teammates or leader.

The central Research Question for this study is:

RQ1: What is the relationship between leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness?

The related Research Questions for this study are:

8

9

RQ2: Which leadership style is most effective in leading software development virtual

teams?

RQ3: Is leader to follower communication time needed to maintain an effective software

development virtual team?

The Null and Alternative Hypotheses for this study are:

H01: There is a positive relationship between a virtual team leader’s leadership style and

software development virtual team effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

Ha1: There is non-positive relationship between a virtual team leader’s leadership style

and software development virtual team effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

H02: There is one specific virtual team leader leadership style that is statistically more

effective than other leadership styles in leading software development virtual teams as measured

by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational

Effectiveness survey.

Ha2: There are more than one specific leadership style that is statistically more effective

than other leadership styles in leading software development virtual teams as measured by the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational

Effectiveness survey.

9

10

H03: Virtual teams do need Leader to follower communication to maintain statistically

significant high performance levels as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X

survey and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

Ha3: Virtual teams do not need leader to follower communication time to maintain

statistically significant high performance levels as measured by the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

Theoretical Framework

Leadership Theoretical Framework. The study of leadership styles as they relate to

virtual teams, builds on the body of knowledge that exists on leadership styles in the traditional

workplace. Leadership styles in the traditional workplace have been the subject of much

research and study. The scientific study of leadership can be divided into three periods: the trait

period, from around 1910 to World War II, the behavior period, from the onset of World War II

to the late 1960s, and the contingency period, from the late 1960s to the present (Chemers,

1984). The trait approach emphasizes leaders’ attributes such as personality, motives, values,

and skills. Underlying this approach was the assumption that some people are natural leaders,

endowed with certain traits not possessed by other people (Yukl, 2006, p. 13).

Behavioral Approach. The behavioral approach started in the early 1950s, after many

researchers became discouraged with the trait approach and began to pay closer attention to what

managers do on-the-job (Yukl, 2006, p. 13). Behavioral studies initially centered on three

leadership styles; autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. The autocratic style was

characterized by the tight control of group activities, and decisions made by the leader. The

10

11

democratic style emphasized group participation and majority rule, while the laissez-faire

leadership pattern involved very low levels of any kind of activity by the leader (Chemers, 1984,

p. 84).

Contingency Theory. Fred Fiedler developed a leadership theory known as the

contingency theory in 1964 that centered on a personality measure called the esteem for the least

preferred co-worker or LPC scale, which was related to group performance. The contingency

theory of leadership provides a reliable prediction of the effects of leadership style on

organizational outcomes (Chemers, 1984, p. 86). O’Toole (1995) had a negative view of

contingency theory:

We can see that what is wrong with contingency theory is that it stands on the quicksand

of relativism: It says to the leader, in effect, sometimes it is OK to be tough, even

abusive—it all depends. As long as ‘it all depends’, realists will believe that they must be

abusive to be effective. (O’Toole, 1995, p. 282)

Theory X and Y. Another major leadership theorist is Douglas McGregor. McGregor

developed two complementary theories called X and Y in1960, used to categorize leaders.

Theory X leaders (also called autocratic) believe that managers must exert force in order for

employees to produce at high levels. As a result, Theory X leaders closely supervise and monitor

employees. Theory X leaders do not engage employees in decision-making or seek their input on

decisions. Theory X leaders attempt to maintain total control. Theory X leaders may motivate

employees to produce, but they motivate by creating fear. They may gain compliance, but they

rarely engender employee commitment. Theory X leaders experience high turnover and low

11

12

employee morale. Theory Y leaders (also called democratic or participative) believe that under

the right conditions people will invest in work to the same extent they invest in their leisure and

personal activities. Theory Y leaders engage and empower employees. Theory Y leaders involve

employees in decision making and seek their input. Theory Y leaders foster committed

employees—people inspired to do their best (McGregor, 1960). Given the distributed nature of

globally dispersed teams, theory Y leaders have difficulty closely supervising the team members.

Theory Y leaders will need to engender the full commitment of team members in an environment

in which there is little, if any, face-to-face contact.

Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Transactional leaders exchange one

thing for another: jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions. Such transactions

comprise the bulk of the relationships among leaders and followers, especially in groups,

legislatures and political parties (Burns, 1978, p. 3). A transformational leader recognizes

associates' needs, and tries to develop those needs from lower to higher levels of maturity.

Transformational leaders engage the full person so that followers are developed into leaders

(Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 16). Transformational leadership motivates workers and appeals to

followers’ ideals and moral values. Transformational leaders inspire others, create vision, and set

direction (Bennett, 2009).

Definition of Terms

This study includes a number of operational terms presented by the literature reviewed on

the subject of virtual teams. The study of virtual team behavior and leadership is still relatively

new and as a result produces new operational terms. A list of these operational terms follows:

12

13

Leader to Follower Communication: For the purposes of this study, the term leader to

follower communication includes face-to-face (live meetings) as well as computer-mediated

communication to include; video and voice-teleconferencing. Some organizations have adopted

virtual teams, characterized by geographically dispersed members who communicate mainly

through technology, such as sophisticated groupware technologies, telephone, videoconferences,

virtual meetings, and email (Symons & Stenzel, 2007). In a virtual organization, members are

geographically apart, likely independent legal entities, but working together as a single,

productive, unified organization, seeking to achieve a well-defined task (McNurlin, Sprague, &

Bui, 2009).

GDT: The acronym GDT stands for globally distributed team. These teams are virtual

teams distributed worldwide. A GDT is a group of people working across time and space using

technology and communication to get their work done effectively-no matter where they are

(LaBrosse, 2008).

SDLC: The acronym SDLC stands for Systems Development Life Cycle and is an

acronym that describes either software or systems development life-cycles. Although the

concepts between the two are the same, one refers to the life-cycle of software whereas the other

to that of a system that encompasses software development (Ruparelia, 2010).

Virtual: The term ‘virtual’ refers to project teams or organizations whose members are

not physically located at the same location. In a virtual organization, members are geographically

apart, likely independent legal entities, but working together as a single, productive, unified

organization, seeking to achieve a well-defined task (McNurlin, Sprague, & Bui, 2009).

13

14

Assumptions

Because of advances in modern information systems, virtual teams will become more

common than they are today and will require a different leadership style. Leaders will still need

to communicate the corporate vision and performance goals to followers even in a virtual setting.

The corporate vision must be crafted and articulated with clarity, continuity, and consistency.

Clarity of expression makes company objectives understandable and meaningful. Continuity of

purpose allows followers to understand the enduring importance of company objectives.

Company objectives must be applied consistently across business entities and geographical

boundaries to ensure uniformity throughout the organization (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 2000, p. 140).

An assumption related to research question 3 "virtual teams need leader to follower

communication to maintain an effective virtual team" is that Transformational leadership is

indicative of more leader to follower communication and Laissez-Faire leadership is indicative

of less leader to follower communication. A leader cannot be both transformational and passive

avoidant. Transformational leadership is active – formulating and expressing vision and shared

goals, giving feedback, providing encouragement – and requires engagement far beyond the

range of the passive avoidant leader (Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012).

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations

The scope of this study is the geographically distributed software development virtual

team members and leaders, and members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software

Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. The research

study’s results were applicable to all geographically distributed teams, regardless of industry or

14

15

corporate culture. The results of this study was limited by each member’s perception of their

leader and team performance. The study also had limitations and delimitations that allowed

easier analysis of the survey questions.

Scope. The population was a subset of the members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. The

researcher expected that there would be between 25 and 50 participants. The participants were

past or present members of software development virtual teams. The study was a quantitative

analysis of the data collected from the survey questions.

Scope. The population was a subset of the members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. The

researcher expected that there would be between 25 and 50 participants. The participants were

past or present members of software development virtual teams. The study was a quantitative

analysis of the data collected from the survey questions.

Limitations. Although this study was conducted with virtual team leaders in multiple

organizations, the sample population might not be representative of the entire virtual team leader

population. Participation in the study was limited to members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network willing

to take the time to complete an electronic questionnaire. The researcher used electronic

questionnaires instead of live interviews because of the geographic distribution of the

participants. Multiple choice questions did not allow participants to fully express their views on

the questions asked or on virtual team leadership in general. An electronic questionnaire is a

15

16

survey instrument that is accessible on a computer and used to collect data (Creswell, 2005, p.

361). The sample size was anticipated to be in the range of 20 and 50 participants. The number

of people willing to complete the survey determined the final sample size of 20 participants.

Laboratory experiments enable control over key variables, thereby increasing confidence in the

validity of their results. However, the generalizability of laboratory experiments on zero-history,

purely virtual teams, with no leader to follower contact, that interact through electronic media is

limited (Huang, Kahai, & Jestice, September, 2010). Since this study did not take place in a

laboratory setting where key variables can be controlled, there may be less confidence in the key

variables, but the results are more generalizable.

Delimitations. The data was collected from a sample of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. In

convenience sampling, the researcher selects participants because they are willing and available

to be studied. In this case, the researcher cannot say with confidence that the individuals are

representative of the population. However, the sample can provide useful information for

answering questions and hypotheses (Creswell, 2005). In this study, it is reasonable to assume

that the population sample was representative of virtual team members and leaders. Another

delimitation was that the level or frequency of communication between leader and follower was

not ascertained. For the purposes of this study, the level of communication was inferred as a

result of the type of leadership. More communication was inferred for the transformational and

transactional leaders and less communication was inferred for passive/avoidant or laissez-faire

leaders.

16

17

Chapter Summary

While there has been much research on leadership styles in the workplace and on virtual

teams, there has been very little research on the effect of leadership styles on virtual team

performance. The leader’s personality traits and leadership style affects the performance of the

virtual team. This study provided an analysis of the leadership styles used to lead virtual teams

and which are most effective.

The leaders of GDTs in the software development industry face the daunting task of

geographically dispersed leading teams employed by different companies. These teams are

temporary in the sense that they exist only as long as the contract is in place. Each team member

works on the specific deliverables they are on contract for and may not necessarily care about the

delivery of the entire project. The program or project manager must lead these GDT members

for a specified period until project completion. The program manager must know what type of

leadership style is most effective in leading a GDT under these conditions. Chapter 2 reviews

the existing literature on leadership styles, virtual teams, and GDTs.

17

18

Chapter 2

Literature Review

This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the literature available on leadership,

collocated team leadership, and virtual team leadership. This chapter also reviews of the existing

literature on the quantitative method and correlational design. The literature review contains

document sources, historical overview, virtual team benefits and challenges, leadership styles

and performance, research methods and designs, and a summary of the review. Virtual teams are

still a relatively new concept and are the subject of more recent peer-reviewed articles and

studies. However, researchers have conducted very few studies on virtual team leadership

effectiveness in the software development industry. Virtual teams working across time and

distance and with organizational partners is not just a temporary fad but a new way of doing

business (Duarte & Snyder, 2001). The word virtual divides managers into two groups. The first

group winces when they hear the word and feel uncomfortable at the idea of not seeing their

employees physically every day. The second group lights up with the possibilities (LaBrosse,

2008).

Researchers have documented the challenges in the collocated environment. The

challenges of operating in a virtual environment are still new to leaders and followers. Software

development efforts still suffer from age-old difficulties such as cost overruns, project delays,

and unmet user needs, despite the recent introduction and widespread use of a plethora of

approaches, techniques, and tools such as prototyping, data modeling, structured methods,

18

19

fourth-generation languages, relational DBMSs, object-oriented programming, and computer

assisted software engineering (Barki, Rivard, & Talbot, 1993).

In the area of software development, the pressure to produce applications within the

agreed upon budget and schedule has never been greater. For virtual teams, the challenge of

leadership is particularly acute because the leader has the challenges of geographic dispersion

and innovation problem-solving (Malhotra, et al., 2007). To achieve performance goals, leaders

must find ways to motivate team members without the benefit of live meetings. Another

important factor in leading a virtual team is development of trust. The relationship between trust

and job performance is as strong or stronger than relationships with other attitudes such as job

satisfaction. Trust predicted counterproductive behaviors, which can prove quite costly to

organizations, and trust is positively correlated with affective commitment (Colquitt, Scott, &

LePine, 2007).

Document Sources

The literature reviewed included 110 peer-reviewed articles, five dissertations, 38

textbooks, two websites, and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire user manual. The

researcher collected data for this literature review from sources, such as ProQuest, EBSCOhost,

SAGE, and also from the proprietary libraries of the Academy of Management (AOM),

Association for Information Systems electronic library (AISeL), and other scholarly sources

from previous coursework.

19

20

Historical Overview

The software development industry has become very important to our economy and

society in general as a result of our dependence on computers. Organizations seek to limit the

cost of software development by standardizing development processes and taking advantage of

lower labor markets. The rationale for the adoption of a Global Software Development (GSD)

strategy has been attributed to organizations endeavoring to gain and maintain competitive

advantage (Casey, 2010).

When each team member develops individual software module(s) it is referred to as

distributed software development (DSD). DSD scenarios are defined by a number of

characteristics. One characteristic is the distance between individual members or teams. When

DSD teams are located in cities in different countries, or even continents this is known as global

software development (Palacio, Vizcaíno, Morán, & González, 2011). Global software

development requires a high level of coordination to develop complex software applications.

This coordination is needed to achieve decision consensus among members of a group, the

decisions must be made expeditiously and with precision, and to keep the working group as

informed as possible regarding the project’s progress (Palacio, et al., 2011). Before

implementing a virtual team, the organization must; 1) Understand why it is being implemented,

2) Provide infrastructure and processes, 3) Implement virtual team project management strategy,

4) Develop goals, objectives and rewards, 5) Define of roles and responsibilities, 6) Address

cultural, communication, motivation and fear issues, and 7) Provide training (Casey &

Richardson, 2009).

20

21

Software Development. Software development teams commonly use the System

Development Life Cycle (SDLC) development process. In most descriptions of the SDLC, there

are eight distinct phases that include preliminary investigation, problem analysis, requirements

analysis, decision analysis, design, construction, implementation, operation and support

(Cervone, 2007). The SDLC consists of phases varying from author to author. However, an

information systems project can only be successful with intense interaction amongst project

manager, system analysts, system designers and the end users (Philip, Afolabi, Adeniran,

Oluwatolani, & Ishaya, 2010).

Software Development Project Management. Software development project managers

follow the body of knowledge established by the Project Management Institute. A project

management office (PMO) usually oversees all projects in an organization. Management is

struggling with the integration of IT into the project management process. The management

challenges include the cultural issues, values and attitudes surrounding project teams, their work

processes, decision-making, knowledge transfers and adapting to environmental changes (Hans,

2004). The virtual environment amplifies these project management challenges. Project

management requires communication within the project team and with project sponsors and

stakeholders. Project managers need to keep users aware of what is going on at all times. The

Project manager should also be the person that tells users first of any changes in the schedule or

plan. The project manager should consult the project sponsor before things are put into action

(McManus & Wood-Harper, 2003).

21

22

The centralized or projectized PMO is responsible for processes, procedures, systems,

and tools (Project Management Institute, 2004). The centralized project management

organization’s leadership statistically understood the virtual way of doing business. The

leadership established high expectations of the virtual team but ensured that partners in and out

of the organization supported the team (Malhotra, et al., 2007). A small overarching PMO

should be established to review the training, technology, processes, and competencies for the

virtual project managers. This provides the virtual project teams with the understanding that

there is trust and that the organization values the work and results (Curlee, 2008). The project

manager holds the team together. While individual team members need only know his or her part

in the project, the project manager needs to create the project plans and keep the overall

objectives in sight (Pons, 2008).

Virtual Team Benefits

Organizational leaders are frequently tasked with “leading” employees in remote

locations, or leading so many employees that regular leader to follower contact is difficult. As a

result, leaders increasingly rely on technologically-based communication with subordinates

including the use of email and video/teleconferencing (Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, &

Gatien, 2003). There are several paradoxes that exist in the virtual team setting. Virtual teams

must be flexible but need structural mechanisms to help coordinate team efforts. Teamwork

implies interdependence, however in virtual teams each person must be accountable for his/her

work. Trust is necessary for effectiveness, and yet mistrust provides an opportunity to achieve

trustworthiness. Virtual teams are geographically distributed and yet virtual teams require

22

23

members to be at work to complete tasks. Virtual teams are task-oriented because of the nature

of the work, but depend on social interactions to complete their tasks (Dube’ & Robey, 2008).

Modern organizations are becoming increasingly geographically distributed as a result of

mergers and acquisitions, and global operations. The growing popularity of inter-organizational

alliances (such as Microsoft and Intel), combined with a growing tendency to flatter

organizational structures and globalization, has accelerated the need for firms to coordinate

activities that span geographical, as well as organizational boundaries (Kayworth & Leidner,

2001/2002). The Internet and communications technologies, such as mobile phones and wireless

networking (Wi-Fi) enable organizations to become geographically distributed or virtual. These

virtual organizations support the global expansion of firms and have other direct benefits to

society. The virtual office saves on overhead costs by reducing bureaucracy, so management

tools must replace administrators as much as possible by automating the reporting and

collaboration needed to update and distribute data (Elkins, 2008).

In the software development environment, the only things the software developer requires

to do his job is access to a computer, the integrated development environment or groupware

software application used by the team, and the ability to communicate with other team members

and the team leader. Groupware systems are beneficial when all team members use them. Using

groupware creates problems if only a subset of the team adopts it. The team members that use a

groupware system, may incorrectly assume that non-using members are inactive (Steinfeld,

2002).

23

24

Companies engaged in global software development (GSD) using virtual teams may

benefit from such arrangements if they learn how to work together effectively and efficiently.

(Barkhi, Amiri, & James, 2006). There are many potential benefits that can arise from GSD. The

most frequently cited one is that of reduced development costs due to the salary savings possible.

GSD also affords new opportunities for cross-site modularization of development work, potential

access to a larger and better-skilled developer pool. Project information is documented and

distributed electronically rather than discussed in person, which allows for the passing on of

project-specific knowledge in distributed settings (Conchúir, et al., August, 2009).

Virtual employees that work from home (also referred to as teleworkers or

telecommuters) have the benefit of no commute time, lowered travel expenses, and reduced

stress, while society in general experiences less traffic congestion and air pollution (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2005). There are three conceptual themes regarding

telecommuting in literature. The first is employees’ personal assessments of the extent to which

they can structure and control how and when they do their particular job tasks. The second

concerns telecommuting’s effects on the work–family interface which scholars view as

integrating work and family roles. The third deals with telecommuting’s potential for relational

impoverishment at work due to reduction in leader to follower interactions (Gajendran &

Harrison, 2007).

Many telecommuters feel they have less pressure and are more productive when they

work at home. They also see substantial benefits, such as the ability to balance work and family

life, increased quality of social life, more flexible working hours, and improved time

24

25

management (Crandall & Longge, 2005). More experience with telecommuting strengthened the

beneficial impact of telecommuting on work–family conflict and role stress. This parallels our

findings for the moderating role of intensity, suggesting that, perhaps to no one’s surprise, there

is a learning curve associated with adjusting to telecommuting (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007).

From an organizational perspective, the benefits of virtual teams include access to talent

anywhere in the world, the ability to offer flexible work arrangements, increased worker

productivity, the team can work 24 hours a day because of global distribution, reduced overhead

because of lower travel and real estate expenses, and more inclusivity for workers with physical

challenges (LaBrosse, 2008). The shortage of sufficient developer talent is a major constraint

that organizations face in their domestic location. Countries such as India and China, with

populations in excess of 1 billion people, are producing hundreds of thousands of software

engineers (Conchúir, Ågerfalk., Olsson, & Fitzgerald, 2009).

The ability to manage and conduct business without walls or boundaries is a 21st Century

paradigm gaining momentum. Using global virtual teams to undertake projects without the

shackles of geography, time and physical location is enabling organizations to conduct business

in regions previously thought of as inaccessible (McLean, 2007). Productivity gains from virtual

teams are not guaranteed because the lack of physical co-location and the use of lean media

create challenges for a virtual team to coordinate its work, get and stay motivated, create

commitment, and develop trusting relationships (Huang, et al., September, 2010).

25

26

Virtual Team Challenges

In spite all the advantages of distributed software development, developers distributed in

different geographical locations have difficulties interacting and coordinating their activities

(Palacio, et al., 2011). The shortage of software developers and pursuit of lower costs causes

companies to hire developers regardless of physical location and use technology to manage the

software development process. The challenge for dispersed teams is working well together and

coordinating their activities (Barkhi, Amiri, & James, 2006). Confusion, resulting from

geographical displacement as well as asynchronous communication can be addressed through

effective team leadership in the virtual environment (Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2006/2007).

While software development is intrinsically a complex task, software development in a

GSD [global software development] context increases this complexity significantly, particularly

with respect to communication, coordination and control issues (Conchúir, et. al., 2009).

Because trust and communication, head the list of challenges that virtual teams face, it is not

surprising that most virtual teams struggle to achieve their goals (Levasseur, 2012).

Communication needs to be cost-effective regarding interruptions; that is, achieving a

balance between having constant awareness and communication among colleagues for the

benefit of the issuer and minimizing interruptions and work fragmentation for the benefit of the

receiver (Palacio, et al., 2011). To be successful, GSD teams would need to have the following

capabilities; 1) use available resources independently of geographic location, 2) plan practices

and technology to support the level of coordination anticipated to be required among sites, 3)

achieve shared understanding of requirements, 4) measure the “fit” of a software architecture

26

27

with the organization that builds the system, and have a set of known, effective tactics for

improving the fit, and 5) effectively manage change (Herbsleb, 2007).

In the Virtual Team environment, geographically and temporally (time zone) distributed

virtual team members complicate the Project Manager’s role. These virtual team members may

also originate from distinct corporate cultures. One challenge within the project management

community is how to structure the PMO for virtual project managers. The project manager in a

decentralized organization, does not have an overarching organization that provides

administrative and functional guidance and support for the virtual environment (Curlee, 2008).

In virtual teams, the majority of communications between team members is computer-

mediated. The virtual office consists of a staff assigned or connected only through their roles in

certain projects, so managers must facilitate the communication for a matrix-type organization

and get buy-in on project goals from staff who may not directly share in the benefits of achieving

these goals (Elkins, 2000). Computer-mediated communications are even more important in the

virtual environment. To communicate effectively, the virtual team leader should pay attention to

how his/her colleagues communicate in e-mail. Don’t automatically assume an informal tone

until you have gained the trust and respect of your team (LaBrosse, 2008). Trust enhances

communication, and this is essential in a virtual environment. Alternate channels of

communications should also be encouraged (Curlee, 2008). Virtual project management must

ensure that communication difficulties do not become an obstacle to effective virtual team

operation (Mishra & Mishra, 2011).

27

28

Virtual teams, using technology as an intermediary for communications, have a more

difficult time establishing a personal link with other team members so it is more difficult to

develop a sense of loyalty and commitment to the team (Powell, Galvin, & Piccoli, 2006).

Managing and evaluating team members is more difficult in virtual settings; project managers

can easily detect team members not 'pulling their weight' in collocated teams (DeSanctis &

Monge, 2000). When trouble occurs within project teams, the organization often finds no

comprehensible leadership, individuals work in silos, and social unrest increases (Waters, 2004).

The efforts of team members that perform well should be recognized. Especially when people

are working virtually, they need to know when they’ve made a difference (LaBrosse, 2008).

According to Hinds and Bailey (2000) previous studies on project teams concluded that

computer-mediated communication is fraught with task conflict (Hinds & Bailey, 2000, p. C3).

Therefore, the risk of task-conflicts in the virtual team environment is high. Virtual teams that

lack leader to follower communication or social presence should use collaborative technology

that provide features such as shared spaces, real-time chat facilities, and the ability to

communicate emotions using icons (e.g., smiley face) that alleviate the shortcomings of the

communication media with low social presence (Barkhi, et al., 2006).

In person communication is superior to computer-mediated communication because in

person communication 1) is richer in visual and auditory cues; 2) minimizes information loss due

to use of multiple communication channels; 3) maximizes feelings of social presence and

conversational involvement; and 4) transmits information about social standing and context

(Purvanova & Bono, June, 2009). In the case of virtual teams that never or rarely meet in

28

29

person, communication technologies are vital for communication (Hollingshead, 2004). These

communication technologies include text-based technologies such as email, chat, and video-

based technologies such as videoconferencing. Video conference is a relatively rich

communication media, that enables the transmission of both verbal and nonverbal cues (Martins,

Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). An organization’s business processes have to be adapted to support

virtual teams. The mobility and flexibility in business practices promised by the Internet and the

virtual office requires the re-engineering of many business processes as well as enterprise tools

to expand connectivity and communication (Elkins, 2000).

The lack of face-time with other team members is a particular hardship for teams

involved with innovative problem-solving as is often the case with software development project

teams. Lack of leader to follower contact inhibited informal communication, and reduced

sharing of ideas between different sites. Complex processes, such as those inherent in best

practice innovation, could not be transferred with a narrow communication medium such as

email (Conchúir, et al., August, 2009).

In the virtual team environment the huge challenge of leadership is particularly acute

because the leader has the joint challenge of geographic dispersion and innovative problem-solving

(Malhotra, et al., 2007). There are four elements to distance that make management of global

software development more complex 1) Geographical - physical separation of team members and

management, 2) Temporal - hinders and limits opportunities for direct contact, cooperation, and

trust development, 3) Linguistic - limits the ability for coherent communication, and 4) Cultural -

negatively impacts understanding and appreciation of the efforts of remote colleagues and teams

(Casey, 2010). 29

30

Communication constraints in a virtual team tend to create confusion about the team’s

status at any point in time. To alleviate this confusion, the leader of a virtual team can

periodically facilitate intra-team communication to create a consolidated picture of the team’s

status (Kayworth & Leidner, 2001/2002, Winter). Virtual teams are frequently beset by

numerous communication and coordination difficulties. Often these problems are attributable to

group dynamics, such as the tendency of some members to dominate discussions (Steinfield,

2002). Another challenge virtual project teams face is communicating with geographically

dispersed stakeholders and clients. The frequency of reporting on project status and pending

issues must be agreed upon. A single point of contact ensures that no information is lost and the

client feels comfortable with the communication structure (Javed, Maqsood, & Durrani (2006).

Effective communication is an essential element for successful globally distributed software

development. Trust, fear, and motivation directly impact on the level, content, and effectiveness

of communication, and the use made of communication tools (Casey, 2010).

The trust level between virtual team members may also be low because of the lack of

personal experience with, or face-time with, other team members. Trust is the foundation of

successful cooperation amongst individuals within and between organizations. It is essential for

the functioning of an organization. High levels of trust within an organization, improves

performance, efficiency, productivity, creativity and the overall results achieved (Casey, 2010).

A majority of an expert panel in a Delphi study, included trust as a contributor to the

collective performance of the alliance when alliance members work as a team to meet or exceed

individual member's goals and net profit objectives (Preston-Ortiz, 2010). Virtual team

30

31

member’s perceptions of mutual trust between themselves and their manager and organizational

peers played an important role in the worker’s adjustment to the work in the virtual team

(Nydegger & Nydegger, 2010). Trust is influenced by familiarity of individuals in a relationship

over time, shared experiences and goals, reciprocal disclosure between individuals over time,

and demonstration of non-exploitation expressed over time (Dani, Burns, Backhouse, &

Kochhar, 2006). Trustworthiness is a crucial trait of transformational leaders. Trust is the

foundation of healthy relationships whether personal or work-related. Broken trust leads to

disorganization, chaos, and fear among followers (Smith, 2011).

In virtual teams cultural, individual and personality differences create tensions, trust

between team members may be difficult to build, and language barriers may be a major

challenge and can impact negatively on interpersonal relationships (McLean, 2008). However,

the challenges varies based on the characteristics of the team. Each virtual team has a unique

mix of opportunities and challenges. Some are highly culturally diverse. Others are more

homogeneous. Some use one primary technology for collaboration, while others use a diverse

mix. Some are short-lived, targeted on solving an immediate problem. Others are longer-term

and strategic. Some cross time zones, and others do not (Brake, 2006). While it is difficult to

build trust in virtual teams, it is not impossible. Launching the project with a live meeting is a

great way to kick off a virtual project. If you can’t meet in person, you can have everyone create

a profile on Facebook or MySpace to introduce themselves (LaBrosse, 2008).

The following trust-building practices are recommended for virtual team leaders;

communicate openly and freely, make your actions as transparent as possible, be accessible and

31

32

responsive, keep everyone informed, do what you say you will do, be consistent and predictable

(Brake, 2006). Virtual team communications are important because team knowledge is

localized, specialized, and fragmented, thereby increasing the need for knowledge sharing

between team members (Qureshi, Liu, & Vogel, 2006).

Virtual team leaders can take steps to create a common team identity and culture. To

help create a common team culture the following questions must be asked; What are your

standards of quality? How do you define excellence? What does your brand mean to each

employee? (LaBrosse, 2008). Besides dealing with trust, communication, and alignment issues,

virtual teams also deal with the challenge of not having the necessary technology, or not

knowing how to use the technology, to enable effective communication among geographically

dispersed team members (Levasseur, 2012).

There are ways to address the challenges faced by virtual teams. Cultural diversity

generates business value by leveraging differences to trigger breakthrough thinking and

innovation. When cultural differences cross one another, they create intersections out of which

new possibilities for seeing, thinking, and doing can emerge (Brake, 2006). Each culture has its

own norms, customs, and expectations for behavior, success in an international environment

depends on one’s ability to understand one’s own and other’s culture (Javed, et al., 2006).

Cultural diversity can also bring risk. For example, the strategy of having the Far Eastern staff

work long hours because of a cultural reluctance to say no. The consequence of this strategy was

the loss of experienced personnel and the organization’s investment in them (Casey &

Richardson, 2009).

32

33

Leadership Styles and Performance

Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2007). Collocated teams (CLT) and geographically

dispersed teams (GDT) both require leadership; however, GDTs lack the leader to follower time

that CLTs have to develop trust and allow leaders to know exactly how team members are

performing. Also in the case of teams comprised of members from different companies, different

corporate cultures and in the case of teams with members in different countries language and

ethnic differences also come into play. The differences between GDTs and CLTs also influence

how team leaders assign tasks, measure progress, and assess performance. This change is

problematic for managers accustomed to managing a CLT because they can no longer see all

their employees accomplishing the work. No longer able to rely on informal methods (coffee

breaks or walking the floors, for example) to assess performance and detect problems, they must

also develop new methods to collect information (Geurts, 2005). We need to understand the

effective leadership styles and contrast virtual teams with and without initial leader to follower

contact. The issue of member diversity also awaits exploration (Jarvenpaa, 1998).

Modern Views on Leadership. Researchers have studied leadership methods and styles

in the traditional team environment. The simplistic trait approaches were superseded by the

behavioral studies that were replaced by the contingency theories (Chemers, 1984).

Contemporary thinking on leadership styles developed in the late twentieth century and focused

on three types of leadership the Transformational, Transactional, and Passive/Avoidant or

Laissez-Faire leadership styles (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramanium, 2003). However,

33

34

Avolio and Bass (2004), Avolio, Bass, and Jung (1999), Geyer and Steyrer (1998), and Den

Hartog et al. (1997) changed the term ‘Laissez-Faire’ to ‘Passive/Avoidant’ to describe the third

leadership style better.

Passive/Avoidant Leadership. Laissez-faire management involves a “hands-off”

approach toward workers and their performance, characterized by neglect of employees by the

leader, abdication of responsibility, not responding to employee problems, and a lack of

monitoring of their work performance (Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012). The laissez-

faire leadership style is essentially a lack of leadership that manifests itself as non-leadership

behavior with a tendency towards escaping responsibilities (Ryan & Tipu, 2013). The laissez-

faire style leaders exhibit behaviors that imply the leader’s indifference towards both follower

actions and organizational outcomes, as well as demonstrating an attitude of abdicating

responsibility (to make decisions, or address important issues) (Xirasagar, 2008). In the case of

Laissez-faire leadership style, emails would only be transmitted from leaders to their direct

reports when absolutely necessary, and would be brief and devoid of any positive or negative

statements (Kelloway, et al., 2003). A leader cannot be both transformational and passive

avoidant. Transformational leadership is active – formulating and expressing vision and shared

goals, giving feedback, providing encouragement – and requires engagement far beyond the

range of the passive avoidant leader (Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012).

Transactional Leadership. Transactional leadership focuses on the exchanges that occur

between leaders and followers. Managers who offer promotions to employees who surpass their

goals are exhibiting transactional leadership (Northouse, 2007). The transactional leader is one

34

35

who operates within the existing system or culture, has an inclination toward risk avoidance, and

focuses on time constraints, standards, and efficiency (Bass, 1985). Transactional leadership

describes the relationship between managers and subordinates in terms of exchanges of

economic, political, and psychological values. The relationship is a temporary negotiation

process instead of an enduring, purposeful one (Dai, Dai, Chen, & Wu, 2013). Transactional

leaders prepare the team to achieve innovative performance by articulating clear standards and

expectations for innovation and recognizing team members for specific milestones achieved

(Liu, Liu, & Zeng, 2011). Followers of transactional leaders fulfill their own self-interest,

experience less workplace anxiety, and concentrate on clear organizational objectives such as

increased quality, customer service, reduced costs, and increased production (Sadeghi & Pihie,

2012). Transactional leadership focuses on two factors: contingent reward and management-by-

exception (Northouse, 2007).

Contingent Reward. Contingent reward refers to a bartering process among leaders and

followers toward an agreed upon compensation. Transactional leaders use a reward system such

as bonuses, employee recognition, and a merit system to reward subordinates (Northouse, 2007).

The contingent reward method of motivation allows the employees to determine the method for

task accomplishment and progress measurement in return for recognition of goal

accomplishments. Contingent reward can be an effective leadership style, except the leader only

receives the agreed-upon results or efforts. Contingent reward leadership is presumed to result in

followers achieving only the negotiated level of performance (Avolio, 1999; Brymer & Gray,

2006).

35

36

Management-By-Exception. Management-by-exception takes on two forms: active

(MBE-A) and passive (MBE-P). Management-by-exception involves corrective criticism and

meaningful feedback to followers (Northouse, 2007). Leaders using the MBE-A style involve

themselves in the work process looking for deviations from standard protocol, intervening prior

to employees making errors. MBE-A spans behaviors intended to proactively prevent potential

problems before they arise (Xirasagar, 2008). Leaders using the MBE-P leadership style,

intervene only after employees' work is inaccurate or substandard (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 2008;

Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1993; Bass & Riggio, 2006). MBE-P leadership includes watching for

deviations from the expected performance norms and standards, and providing feedback to

correct deviations from the norm (Xirasagar, 2008).

Transformational Leadeship. Transformational leadership motivates and appeals to

followers’ ideals and moral values to do more. Transformational leaders look to inspire, to set

direction and vision, to empower subordinates to participate and take the initiative in changing

the organization. The transformational leader is the leader who is able to energize, align, and

excite followers by providing a compelling vision of the future (Kankanhalli, et al., 2007).

Transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a

connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and follower

(Northouse, 2007).

Transformational leaders are also charismatic that lead, inspire, and improve behavior

and productivity (Bass, 1985; Tucker & Russell, 2003). Today there is much discussion and

research of transformational leadership. The test of transformational leadership, for Bass, comes

36

37

from management goals. Performance beyond expectations entails the creation of an

environment that enables followers to recognize and realize an organization goal that exceeds

past accomplishments (Couto,1993, p. 106).

Transformational leaders are adept at instituting change and should at least have an easier

time of adapting to the virtual environment. Leadership is about coping with change. The

reason leadership has become so important in recent years is that the business world has become

competitive and more volatile. This is due to faster technological change, greater international

competition, the deregulation of markets, overcapacity in capital-intensive industries, an unstable

oil cartel, raiders with junk bonds, and the changing demographics of the work force (Kotter,

1990, p. 115). All of these change factors directly affect the software development industry.

Transformational leaders are well-suited to deal with change and when necessary lead change in

the organization. Transformational leadership has four aspects: idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, individual stimulation, and individual consideration (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 2008; Bass

& Avolio, 1990, 1993; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Idealized Influence. Idealized influence is founded on trust. An individual must exhibit

high moral and ethical standards. These are the foundations that begin the bond between leaders

and followers (Kendrick, 2011). There are two aspects to idealized influence: the leaders’

behaviors and the elements that are attributed to the leader by followers and other associates

(Ibrahim, Ghavifekr, Ling, Siraj, & Azeez, 2014). Transformational leaders that exhibit the

idealized influence-attributed aspect are confident and instill emotions (such as dignity, integrity,

and honor), a sense of selflessness, and respect in their followers. Transformational leaders that

37

38

exhibit the idealized influence-behavior aspect are goal-oriented and encourage the completion

of work based on a collective sense of beliefs, values, purpose, and mission (Loon, Lim, Teck, &

Cai, 2012).

Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational motivation is the ability to help followers see

clearly what is the right thing to do. It creates the drive for shared goals and visions. There may

be frequent challenges to the status quo and development of clear mind maps of what the future

state looks like (Kendrick, 2011). Transformational leaders are optimistic, visionary and

passionate about work. Inspirational motivation (articulating an appealing vision) is the leaders'

ability to formulate and express vision that work teams or the entire organization can identify

with from both the commercial and personal perspectives. (Loon, et al., 2012).

Individual Stimulation. Individual stimulation also challenges the follower to question

basic assumptions and to generate a more creative solution to problems. Through the

transformational leader's vision, the followers can connect the dots and see the big picture. This

releases them from staid conventions (Kendrick, 2011). A leader's use of intellectual stimulation

exhibits his/her belief that when teams promote and manage task conflict, the resulting

innovation can lead to better team performance and decision-making (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Transformational leaders encourage innovation and creative problem solving (Loon, et al.,

2012).

Individual Consideration. Individual consideration treats each follower as a unique

contributor and provides coaching, mentoring, feedback and growth opportunities. This is not a

cookie-cutter approach or a one-size fits-all solution. Once given individual attention and

38

39

allowed to grow, many followers far exceed what was generally recognized as outstanding

performance. (Kendrick, 2011). Individualized consideration encompasses attentive listening,

consideration of individuals as having different needs, abilities and aspirations, and time spent in

coaching and teaching (Bass, 1985, 1990). The individually considerate leader constructs a one-

to-one relationship with each team member, listens to concerns and addresses individual needs

(Bass, 1994; Yammarino, Dubinsky, & Spangler, 1998). As such, the transformational leadership

factor of individualized consideration supports effective team communication (Dionne,

Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).

Leading Virtual Teams. Virtual teams are teams that are geographically dispersed.

Teams are an outgrowth of the quality management process, and go beyond the quality circles

and empowerment trends that achieved popularity in the 1980s (Dess & Miller, 1993). Team

performance has been addressed in the team literature as a generalized framework that includes

inputs (i.e. resources), processes (i.e. collective effort) and outcomes (i.e. specific performance

indicators) (Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1992). Virtual team leaders, whether assigned or

emergent, formal or informal, have a definite role to play in promoting and affecting how well

virtual teams work (Zigurs, 2003). It is noted that for virtual teams, collaboration technologies

often offer limited communication media and have less effective support for group problem-

solving processes (Fan, Chen, Wang, & Chen, 2014). Due to geographic and time boundaries,

virtual team leaders use e-mail or other means to convey expectations and task requirements to

team members as well as specifying how their performance will be measured and rewarded (Bass

& Avolio, 1990).

39

40

Although some research on virtual team leadership styles exists, there is relatively little

research on how leadership affects virtual team interaction and performance (Hambley, O'Neill,

& Kline, 2007). Virtual team leadership research has been conducted in the context of analyzing

the roles virtual team leaders assume as compared with co-located team leaders. Virtual teams

have created an opportunity to redefine leadership as it pertains to virtual leaders (Ruggieri,

2009). The major difference between the study of leadership and the study of virtual team

leadership is the fact that scholars and practitioners have had many more decades to argue the

former term and have had much more time to develop a variety of different approaches to the

subject (Whited, 2007, p. 36). Wielke (2008) reviewed previous studies on the subject of the

productivity of virtual teams compared to collocated teams, the review showed conflicting

results and is summarized in Table 1. Casio (2000), and Manochehri and Pinkerton (2003) found

higher productivity in virtual teams. Pearlson and Saunders (2001) found similar virtual and

collocated team productivity. Potter and Balthazard (2002), and Stanton, Ashleigh, Roberts, and

Xu (2003) indicated virtual teams have lower productivity (Wielke, 2008).

Table 1

Productivity in virtual teams versus collocated teams: Studies reporting conflicting results

Productivity

Higher Similar Lower

Casio (2000); Manochehri and Pinkerton (2003)

Pearlson and Saunders (2001)

Potter and Balthazard (2003; Stanton, Ashleigh, Roberts, and Xu (2003)

40

41

Note. Adapted from “Leadership behaviors of virtual team leaders: A phenomenological study,” by R. K. Wielke 2008 (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3333910)

The review of existing studies by Wielke (2008) also found conflicting results relative to

the effect of cultural differences on the level of virtual team conflict (see Table 2). According to

Wielke (2008) “Kankanhalli, Tan, and Wei (2006/2007) and Hinds and Bailey (2003) indicated

virtual teams had higher levels of conflict than collocated teams. Staples and Zhao (2006) did

not find increased conflict. Johnson (2004) found a correlation between conflict and decreased

communication” (pp. 6-7).

Table 2

Conflict in virtual versus collocated teams: Studies reported conflicting results

Conflict Higher Similar Inconclusive Hinds and Bailey (2003);

Kankanhalli et al. (2006/2007)

Staples and Zhao (2006)

Johnson (2004)

Note. Adapted from “Leadership behaviors of virtual team leaders: A phenomenological study,” by R. K. Wielke 2008 (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3333910)

Researchers still debate the effect of leadership on team performance. However, Pfeffer

(1977) stated that three reasons that the observed effects of leaders on organizational outcomes

would be small are first, organizations select the employees placed in leadership positions.

Second, once in the leadership position the organization may constrain the discretion and

behavior of the leader. Third, leaders can typically affect only a few of the variables that affect

organizational performance. Pfeffer’s view of leadership is in direct opposition to Hazy (2006)

41

42

who posited that effective leadership increases the frequency of positive outcomes within an

organization. Transformational leaders primarily influence followers by inspiring them to rise

above their immediate self-interests and focus on helping the group and its members.

Transformational leadership behavioral components include intellectual stimulation,

individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence (Huang, et al.,

September, 2010). The transformational leader is viewed as more charismatic, less centered on

the task and more on relationships, oriented more towards the future and workgroup

development. This leader is generally assigned more positive adjectives and perceived as being

intelligent, but also endowed with creativity and originality (Ruggieri, 2009).

Virtual team leadership is highly important to virtual team performance (Hambley,

O’Neill & Kline, 2006). Leadership is particularly difficult in geographically displaced

environments. Whited (2007) explored the additional challenge of leading virtual team members

from different age groups. Virtual team leaders face the possibility of having a difficult time

with Generation X virtual team members. Virtual team leaders might require some different

skills and tactics to motivate this generation, whose professional attitude is very different from

the previous generation (Whited, 2007).

Virtual team leadership requires management by objectives and providing feedback to

help every team member manage his work (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005). Managing and

evaluating team members is more difficult in virtual settings; it is presumed easier to detect team

members not 'pulling their weight' in collocated teams (DeSanctis & Monge, 2000). To

overcome this challenge, a leader can create a structure that allows team members to regulate

42

43

their own performance as a team (Huang, et al., September, 2010). Leadership principles that

apply to traditional team leaders also apply to virtual team leaders, but because of the distance

and communication differences, virtual team leaders must work more diligently and provide

more leadership to achieve the same results (Whited, 2007).

The literature on mediated communication and unshared context suggests that virtual

teams are likely to experience more affective and task conflict. Distance, coupled with a reliance

on mediated communication, can create depersonalized interactions (Hinds & Bailey, 2000).

How leadership works within the contexts of different communication media, however, has

received relatively little attention in the literature (Hambley, et al., 2007).

In the traditional workplace, local supervision and leadership detect and control team

conflict. In virtual environments, team leaders must detect and control team conflict without the

benefit of face time with team members. Virtual team geographic separation and computer

mediated communications can cause increased conflict. Virtual team collaboration requires

communication technologies when leader to follower communication is limited (Hollingshead,

2004). The use of such technologies continues to grow as they become more accessible and their

cost declines (Baker, 2002; Spreitzer, 2003). There are six effective virtual team leader

practices, they are; establish and maintain trust through communication technology; ensure that

diversity is understood and appreciated; manage virtual work-life cycle (meetings); monitor team

progress using technology; enhance visibility of virtual members; and enable members to benefit

from the team (Malhotra, et al., 2007).

43

44

Hambley, O'neill, and Kline (2005) cited a study by researchers Sosik, Avolio, and Kahai

(1997) who found that transformational leadership was associated with higher levels of group

potency (the group’s belief that it can be effective) than transactional leadership, and that group

potency was related to group effectiveness (Hambley, O'neill, & Kline, 2005). Organizations

need transformational leaders to lead virtual team members to achieve higher performance and

motivate innovation and creativity in the virtual environment (Bass, 1995).

One characteristic of transformational leaders is charisma. Charisma is having a great

emotional appeal and connection with the values and feelings of the followers. Charismatic

leaders are keenly aware of the social environment and are masters of social skills (Khatri,

Templer, & Budhwar, 2012). Charismatic leaders are observable, definable, and have clear

behavioral characteristics. Charismatic leadership is needed to generate energy, create

commitment, and direct individuals towards new objectives, values or aspirations (Nadler &

Cushman, 1990). Charismatic leaders possess self-confidence, self-direction, and an absence of

internal conflict. They have insight into their followers’ needs and utilize this to positively

influence their followers (Smith, 2011). Visionary leaders without charisma may not provide

transformational leadership because they may not be able to 'sell' their vision. Similarly,

charismatic leaders without vision are likely to merely attract attention to themselves rather than

bring about transformation in their institutions. It is possible to achieve transformational

leadership by forming a leadership team that has charismatic and visionary leaders. The

visionary leader communicates the vision to the team; the charismatic leader articulates the

vision and makes it attractive (Khatri, Templer, & Budhwar, 2012). It is possible to transmit

44

45

charisma through computer-mediated media such as email. In a study conducted by Kelloway, et

al., (2003) each participant was given a copy of an email containing either a charismatic,

intellectually stimulating, neutral, or transformational (both charismatic and stimulating)

message. The results of the study showed that participants who read the emails were correctly

able to identify the intended characteristics of the remote leader (Kelloway, et al., 2003).

Appropriateness of Research Design

The interactions between leadership choices, actions, and communications within orga-

nizations, and their consequences, must be better understood in order to improve the process of

leadership in organizations (Hazy, 2006). Researchers Mishra and Mishra (2011) found that

there was a lack of quantitative studies on the management of GDTs and Distributed Software

Development (DSD) teams. The quantitative research methodology, facilitates descriptive,

correlational techniques of a non-experimental nature (Hitson, 2008). In correlational studies,

researchers gather data about two or more characteristics for a particular group of people or other

appropriate units of study (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). This study correlated the relationship

between leadership styles and virtual team effectiveness. A leader’s effectiveness is measured

based on performance outcomes as expressed in the projects objectives (Northouse, 2007).

Quantitative data can be counted or measured and examples of such methods include

clinical trials, surveys and cohort studies (Hoe & Hoare, 2012). The correlational design is

appropriate when studying the correlation between an independent variable and a dependent or

outcome variable in a population. In this case, the independent variables are leadership styles

and the dependent variable is virtual team performance as expressed in the responses collected

45

46

by the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey. The purpose of this quantitative

correlational study is to examine the degree to which leadership style and virtual team

performance are related.

The reasons for conducting quantitative research include quantifying a particular question

which forces one to consider a wide range of data, which makes the analysis more reliable; and

data from quantitative studies are a crucial part of testing empirical hypotheses (Eddington,

2006). To ensure continuity in the study, the hypotheses must logically follow the research

question, the sample population must be consistent with the hypotheses, the measuring

instruments are appropriate for the variables identified in the hypotheses, and all are consistent

with the intended tests of the relationships (Black, 1999).

Prior to deciding on the quantitative correlational design, a case study was considered.

The case study population would have been a single virtual team in a software development

organization. However, the statistical significance of the variables of that study may not have had

the reliability or validity of a study on a larger population. The validity refers to accuracy or

correctness in research. Internal factors question the internal validity of research, whereas,

external factors impugn the external validity of findings (Hagan, 2006). Internal validity

assesses if the instrument produces results that are purposeful (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). The

ability to draw conclusions and to generalize results to the population is predicated on obtaining

purposeful results, verifying external validity (Yokell, 2010).

46

47

Chapter Summary

The results of the literature show that the software development industry has increased its

use of GDTs. These teams are often temporary and the team leader and members in some cases

have little or no previous relationship with each other and little trust. Even though the software

development industry uses both a standardized SDLC and project management practices to

develop software, the leadership style of project team leaders will impact the collocated or

virtual team’s success. Given the cost of software development it is imperative that we

understand which leadership styles are most effective. Once this study identifies the effective

leadership styles, organizations can develop tailored leadership training programs for the virtual

team environment.

The review of the existing literature has shown that there are both benefits and challenges

to the virtual environment. The virtual office saves on overhead costs by reducing bureaucracy,

so management tools must replace administrators as much as possible by automating the

reporting and collaboration needed to update and distribute data (Elkins, 2008). From an

organizational perspective, the benefits of virtual teams include access to talent anywhere in the

world, the ability to offer flexible work arrangements, increased worker productivity, the team

can work 24 hours a day because of global distribution, reduced overhead because of lower

travel and real estate expenses, and more inclusivity for workers with physical challenges

(LaBrosse, 2008). Some virtual team members may work from a remote office or from home.

Virtual team members that work from home are usually referred to as teleworkers or

telecommuters. Telecommuters have the benefit of no commute time, lowered travel expenses,

47

48

and reduced stress, while society in general experiences less traffic congestion and air pollution

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005).

The virtual environment challenges are what make effective team leadership necessary to

achieve team success. The literature review has shown that the challenges include the difficulty

of achieving team harmony in a virtual environment as a result of cultural differences, lack of

trust, and communicating through phone, email and text messaging. Globally distributed

software development and in particular the implementation of a virtual team based strategy is

difficult and complex. Organizations must recognize that virtual teams operate differently to

collocated teams, therefore they must be managed differently (Casey, 2010).

Computer-mediated communication is fraught with task conflict (Hinds & Bailey, 2000).

Inadequate communication between virtual team members can lead to a sense of

disconnectedness and a lack of team cohesion. If virtual teams are to be effective they must feel

a sense of cohesion and connectedness. Factors such as team cohesion and effectiveness depend

upon members trusting and liking one another. Team member attitudes toward each other

depend on the quality, type, and amount of communication they have (Nydekker & Nydekker,

2010). Virtual teams face the following challenges; cultivating trust, overcoming lack of leader

to follower contact, overcoming communication barriers, aligning team members goals,

obtaining clarity on objectives, ensuring the team possesses necessary knowledge and skills,

ensuring the availability of technological resources, dealing with team member role uncertainty

(Levasseur, 2012).

48

49

One factor that can improve team performance is team member empowerment. In the

virtual environment it is impractical for team leaders to monitor team members by looking over

their shoulders. One method used to empower team members is to create a project agreement or

charter that clearly defines the project responsibilities and goals of the team and its members.

Project agreements help to eliminate unnecessary conflict because objectives, expectations,

timelines, and roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. In a virtual environment, it’s

important to update the project agreement regularly and post it to the collaborative work

environment or e-mail it to the team (LaBrosse, 2008).

The review of available literature also exposed issues with managing and evaluating

virtual team members. Managing and evaluating team members is more difficult in virtual

settings; it is presumed easier to detect team members not “pulling their weight” in collocated

teams (DeSanctis & Monge, 2000). Manage team results, not their day-to-day activities. In the

virtual environment, when you can’t see what people are doing, the key is to manage results.

Monitor and measure the results and be clear about the goals (LaBrosse, 2008).

Another topic that the literature review has highlighted is the issue of trust within virtual

teams. As a result of less face-time and primarily communicating through computer-mediated

media, the trust level in a virtual team may be low. Virtual team member’s perceptions of

mutual trust between themselves and their manager and organizational peers played an important

role in the worker’s adjustment to the work in the virtual team (Nydegger & Nydegger, 2010).

In virtual teams, trust between team members may be difficult to build, and language barriers

may be a major challenge and can impact negatively on interpersonal relationships (McLean,

49

50

2008). Virtual team trust increases when the team leaders rotated the times at which weekly audio-

conferences were held so that everyone would experience the pain of a late night or early morning

meeting and posting the task progress and work outputs in the team repository (Malhotra et al.,

2007).

The literature review also covered the topic of leadership styles and their affect on the team

performance. The literature on transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant or laissez-faire

leadership styles were reviewed. The transformational leader is the leader who is able to energize,

align, and excite followers by providing a compelling vision of the future (Kankanhalli, et al.,

2007). Transformational leaders are also charismatic, lead, inspire, and improve behavior and

productivity (Bass, 1985; Tucker & Russell, 2003). Transactional leadership focuses on two

factors: contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent reward refers to a

bartering process among leaders and followers toward an agreed upon compensation.

Management-by-exception involves corrective criticism and meaningful feedback to followers

(Northouse, 2007). The laissez-faire leadership style is essentially a lack of leadership that

manifests itself as non-leadership behavior with a tendency towards escaping responsibilities

(Ryan & Tipu, 2013).

In today’s work environment, change is a constant. Organizational leaders need not only to

accept change, but provide the leadership needed to implement those changes. Leadership is about

coping with change. Part of the reason it has become so important in recent years is that the business

world has become competitive and more volatile (Kotter, 1990). Contemporary thinking on

leadership styles developed in the late twentieth century and focused on three types of leadership

the Transformational, Transactional, and Passive or Laissez-Faire leadership styles (Antonakis,

50

51

Avolio, & Sivasubramanium, 2003). Of these leadership styles, transformational is most capable

of leading an organization through change. Transformational leaders look to inspire, to set

direction and vision, to empower subordinates to participate and take the initiative in changing

the organization (Bass, 1985; Tucker and Russell, 2003). Transformational leaders primarily

influence followers by inspiring them to rise above their immediate self-interests and focus on

helping the group and its members (Huang, et al., September, 2010).

Chapter 3 includes and explains the research method used to research the relationship of

different leadership styles on virtual team performance and effectiveness, and addresses the

research questions discussed in chapter 1.

51

52

Chapter 3

Research Method

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study is to research the effectiveness of

different leadership styles on virtual team performance and address the research questions

discussed in chapter 1. In virtual teams the huge challenge of leadership is particularly acute

because the leader has the joint challenge of geographic dispersion and innovative problem-

solving (Malhotra et al., 2007).

The sample population studied is software development virtual team leaders and also

members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net

group of the LinkedIn Social Media Network. Today, social media is deeply ingrained in our

culture and filters into our workplaces and workflows (Singh, 2011). The study surveyed the

target population using the LinkedIn social media forum. Chapter 3 includes the research

method and design appropriateness, population, and sampling.

Research Method and Design Appropriateness

Research design generally encompasses all the issues involved in planning and executing

a research study – from identifying the problem through to reporting and publishing the results

(Punch, 2014). This researcher used the quantitative correlational research design and collected

interview responses through electronic surveys to accommodate geographically dispersed

participants who make live interviews impracticable. A composite electronic survey assessed the

perceptions of virtual team software development professionals about the leadership styles and

team effectiveness and collected demographic information. The composite electronic survey

52

53

included the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and a Perception of Organizational

Effectiveness survey. The study design was an impartial investigation designed to analyze

whether or not a measurable relationship exists between the selected variables (e.g.,

transformational leadership, transactional leadership, passive/avoidant leadership, and perception

of organizational effectiveness) (Geter, 2010). There are three types of quantitative research;

descriptive, correlational and causal (Parahoo, 1997). In correlational research, the investigator

seeks to examine relationships between variables without introducing an intervention. The

purpose is often to generate hypotheses that can be tested in experimental research (Parahoo,

1997; Burns and Grove, 1999). Hypothesis testing is a source of variability among quantitative

designs and of debate among sociobehavioral scientists. Some time-series designs employ

statistical tests, whereas others employ graphical presentation and visual analysis alone or in

combination with statistical tests of hypotheses (Kratochwill & Mace, 1984). The aim of the

researcher is to describe as accurately as possible the phenomenon, refraining from any pre-given

framework, but remaining true to the facts (Groenewald, 2004). A quantitative method was

appropriate for this study in comparison to other research methods, such as longitudinal,

qualitative, mixed method, case study, informal interviews, or field observations (Hagan, 2006).

Quantitative Research

The researcher used the quantitative research method to conduct this study. Quantitative

research methods examine the effects of specified circumstances (independent variable) on an

outcome of interest (dependent variable) and expresses the outcome numerically. In these

settings, causal inferences are drawn either from direct observation, as in true experiments, or

53

54

from associations established through statistical analysis. Data can be quantified and aggregate

results presented concisely. (Lakshman, Sinha, Biswas, Charles, & Arora, 2000). The

quantitative approach provides the opportunity to survey a small group to make a generalization

about the population (Fink, 2003; Hagan, 2006).

Research Questions

This study proposes that even in the virtual environment there is usually one person who

leads the team and is responsible for its performance and meeting its goals successfully. Leaders

are finding themselves directing portions of, or even entire projects, solely through

communication technologies (Avolio & Kahai, 2003). Research on leadership that is

electronically-mediated is in its infancy (Kelloway, Barling, Kelley, Comtois, & Gatien, 2003).

This study determined which electronically-mediated leadership style best supports harmonious

and effective teamwork in the virtual team software development environment.

Population

The phenomenon dictates the method (not vice-versa) including even the participants

(Hycner, 1985). Virtual team leaders comprised the study’s population. This population should

provide insight into which leadership styles are most effective in the virtual team environment.

Participants in this study expressed their views on leadership styles and their effect on virtual

team effectiveness. The participants represented virtual team leaders and followers who have

access to electronic communications and are members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of

Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. The

54

55

population sample should have experience in virtual teams and understand the issues and

problems associated with them.

Sample Framing

The sample size for this study was 20 participants. Data saturation is the point where you

have identified the major themes and no new information can add to your list of themes or to the

detail for existing themes (Creswell, 2005). Although the idea of saturation is helpful at the

conceptual level, it provides little practical guidance for estimating sample sizes, necessary for

conducting quality research. In a study involving sixty in-depth interviews with women in two

West African countries. The researchers found that saturation occurred within the first twelve

interviews, and basic elements for meta-themes were present as early as six interviews (Guest,

Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). The quantitative approach provides the opportunity to survey a small

group to make a generalization about the population (Fink, 2003; Hagan, 2006).

Informed Consent

The geographically dispersed participants of this study received all survey materials

electronically. However, these participants were willing to provide candid insights into their

experiences within virtual teams only if they had assurances that their responses are kept

confidential. At the start of the electronic survey, the researcher provided the participant with an

informed consent form as well as details on the use of the data collected. The participants

affirmed his or her consent electronically by downloading, signing and returning the informed

consent form. This gave participants an opportunity to decide whether or not they would

participate in the study. A sample copy of the informed consent form is provided in Appendix B.

55

56

Confidentiality

The purpose of the study is to gather data relative to leadership styles used in the virtual

team environment. Confidentiality means that information may have names attached to it, but the

researcher holds it in confidence or keeps it secret from the public (Neuman, 2003). This study

did not publish names or other personal information that connects individual participants with

the results of the study. This study identifies participants only in terms of demographic groups

(i.e. educational attainment, race, gender, etc.) but not individually.

Data Collection

The only source of data collection for this study is an electronic survey. The survey was

made available on the internet through the Survey Monkey website. SurveyMonkey.com ensures

the security of its infrastructure, covering the physical, network, hardware, and software aspects

of operations (Snowden, 2011). The participants accessed the electronic survey through the

Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the

LinkedIn Social Network. The survey contained general and specific questions about the

participant’s virtual team and the leadership styles used by their team leaders. The physical

distance between the researcher and participants should negate any researcher biases.

Instrumentation

The study augments research questions developed to determine the leadership style used

in the traditional environment. The study used an instrument based on the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) created by Bass. The MLQ measures the effect of the three

independent variables of Transformational, Transactional, and Non-transactional Laissez-Faire

56

57

or Passive/Avoidant Leadership upon the three dependent variables of Extra Effort, Satisfaction,

and Effectiveness (Bass, 1985; Avolio and Bass, 2004). This study augments the 45-question

MLQ-5X Rater Form survey instrument with additional questions designed to address virtual

team related research questions. Participants accessed the survey through the Virtual Teams

subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social

Network and reside on the SurveyMonkey website (www.surveymonkey.com). The publisher of

the MLQ-5X survey instrument, Mind Garden, Inc. (www.mindgarden.com) provided this

researcher with permission to use the instrument. This study provides a signed copy of this

permission in Appendix C.

MLQ-5X Rater Form Survey

The MLQ-5X Rater Form survey has many uses. Researchers can use it as a leadership

assessment and development tool. The MLQ measures performance based on leadership styles

and can also collect ratings from peers and subordinates:

The use of the MLQ has many advantages. One advantage is its 360° capabilities.

Researchers can use it to assess perceptions of leadership effectiveness of team leaders,

supervisors, managers, and executives from many levels of an organization. The MLQ

can also assess ratings of leaders from peers or direct reports in any organization or

industry. Also researchers have accumulated considerable evidence indicating that the

MLQ factors apply to all cultures (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 4).

Table 3 provides a short description of each of the leadership styles measured by the

MLQ-5X rater survey form. Another advantage of the MLQ over other leadership surveys is its

57

58

emphasis on development. The survey includes items that measure a leader's effect on both the

personal and intellectual development of self and others. Leaders must develop themselves

before they can develop others (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 4).

Table 3

Definitions of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles in the

MLQ-5X

MLQ-5X scales with subscales Description of Leadership Style

Transformational

Idealized Influence (attribute) Demonstrates qualities that motivate respect and pride from association with him or her.

Idealized Influence (behavior) Communicates values, purpose, and importance of organization's mission

Inspirational Motivation Exhibits optimism and excitement about goals and future states

Intellectual Stimulation Examines new perspectives for solving problems and completing tasks

Individualized Consideration Focuses on development and mentoring of followers and attends to their individual needs

Transactional

Contingent Reward Provides rewards for satisfactory performance by followers

Management by Exception (active) Attends to followers' mistakes and failures to meet standards

Management by Exception (passive) Waits until problems become severe before attending to them and intervening

Laissez-Faire Exhibits frequent absence and lack of involvement during critical junctures

58

59

Note. Adapted from “Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men.,” by Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2003).

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness Survey

The research study in addition to the MLQ survey used a survey to assess the

participants’ perception of organizational effectiveness (see Appendix D). This survey was

originally developed by Dr. Leon Geter for a quantitative cross-sectional study that explored

whether or not the observed leadership styles within two San Francisco Bay area offender reentry

programs related to effective program implementation and outcomes (Geter, 2010). The scale

for perception of organizational effectiveness consists of 14 Likert-type items that ranged from

strongly disagrees to strongly agree. Higher scores represent a perception of an effective

organization, whereas lower scores indicate a perception of an ineffective organization (Geter

(2010).

Validity and Reliability

Reliability means that scores from an instrument are stable and consistent. From an

instrumentation viewpoint, the use of the MLQ instrument provided inherent internal validity

and reliability to the research study (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Kanste, Miettunan, & Kingas, 2007;

Nasser, 2005; Onder & Basim, 2008). Scores should be nearly the same when researchers

administer the instrument multiple times at different times. Also, scores need to be consistent

(Creswell, 2005). Validity is defined as ensuring that the individual’s scores from an instrument

make sense, are meaningful, and enable you, as the researcher, to draw good conclusions from

the sample you are studying to the population (Creswell, 2005). To improve reliability, the

59

60

survey questions were clear and unambiguous, and the surveys were administered in a standard

way (electronically). However, due to the geographically distributed nature of the participants,

there was no way to ensure the emotional state and physical condition of each participant was

similar at the time that they participated in the survey. This study used the MLQ-5X survey

instrument. Bennett (2009) cited a review of the MLQ survey instrument conducted by Lowe,

Kroeck, and Sivasubramanium (1996) “This review tested five MLQ factors: Charisma,

Individualized Consideration, Intellectual Stimulation, Contingent Reward, and Management-by-

Exception. Internal reliability was good as the Mean Cronbach scale obtained for the five factors

tested were 0.92, 0.88, 0.86, 0.82, and 0.65 respectively” (p. 6).

Data Analysis. The independent variable for this research study was transformational

leadership. The dependent variable for this study was the perception of organizational

effectiveness of the software development virtual team member participating in the study.

Inferential statistics allow us to make inferences about large populations by collecting data on

relatively small samples (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). In this case, the statistical data allowed the

researcher to make inferences about the correlation between transformational leadership and the

perception of organizational effectiveness in a software development virtual team. The process

of data analysis consisted of importing of survey responses into the SPSS application, organizing

and coding the data, and statistical data analysis using the SPSS application. The researcher

interpreted the results of the data analysis.

How the Quantitative Data were Coded. The electronic survey used in this study was

actually a combination of both the MLQ-5X Rater form and the Perception of Organizational

60

61

Effectiveness survey developed by Geter (2010). The researcher coded Likert-type items of both

the MLQ-5X Rater form and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey on a five

point scale. The MLQ-5X transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and laissez-faire

leadership scales were rated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = Not at all, 2 = Once in awhile, 3 =

Sometimes, 4 = Fairly often, and 5 = Frequently, if not always. Higher scores indicated more of

each type of leadership. The Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey’s 14 items were

also rated on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 =

agree, and 5 = strongly agree. The final scores for perception of organizational effectiveness

were the mean score for the 14 items from 1 to 5, where 5 represents the highest effectiveness

and 1 represents the lowest effectiveness.

Descriptive statistics for composite scores for transformational, transactional,

passive/avoidant, laissez-faire, and perception of organizational effectiveness were computed as

the mean item score as well as the minimum (min) and maximum (max) for the items associated

with each composite. For the analysis of the MLQ-5X leadership scales, internal consistency

(Cronbach’s α) reliability coefficients were computed for the transformational leadership,

transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership scales. Analysis of the reliability of the

Organizational Effectiveness scale was also performed. If item scores meet certain assumptions,

coefficient alpha is equal to reliability in the population, although it may be higher or lower than

the population reliability for any particular sample (Novick & Lewis, 1967)

61

62

Chapter Summary

Chapter 3 detailed the research method of this quantitative correlational study. The

method of interviewing the participants was through electronic surveys. The researcher selected

this method as a result of the geographic distribution of the participants. The instruments were

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) published by Mind Garden Inc and the

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey. The study provided all participants the

study’s background information in a posting in the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software

Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. This background

information included the reason for the study and use of the information. To participate in the

study, the researcher required that participants read, sign and email the consent form to the

researcher. Chapter 3 also provided the rationale for the survey method appropriateness.

Additional survey questions from the Perception of Organization Effectiveness survey provided

information relative to the effectiveness and performance of the participant’s virtual team.

Chapter 4 provides the results of the survey and the analysis of those results. Chapter 5 provides

the conclusions reached based on the analysis results.

62

63

Chapter 4

Results

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to research the effectiveness of

different leadership styles on virtual team performance. Three research questions were examined:

RQ1: What is the relationship between leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness?

RQ2: Which leadership style is most effective in leading software development virtual

teams?

RQ3: Is leader to follower communication time needed to maintain an effective software

development virtual team?

The current chapter presents the results of the analyses performed to achieve this purpose.

Initially, the results from the study are discussed. Then, the reliability of the composite scores

used to test the hypotheses is examined and the sample selection, sample demographic, and

background characteristics are described. Each of the three research questions of this study are

then addressed including testing each of the seven null hypothesis of this study. The chapter ends

with a summary and the conclusions from the data analyses.

Instrument Reliability

The first step in the analysis was to examine the reliability of the four composite scores

used in this study. For the analysis of the MLQ-5X leadership scale reliability, internal

consistency (Cronbach’s α) reliability coefficients were computed for the transformational

leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership scales. For scores on the

63

64

transformational leadership scale, with 20 items, the reliability was .95. For the transactional

leadership scale, the reliability of the 8-item scale was only .70. For the laissez-faire leadership

scale, the reliability of the 4-item composite was only .84. Analysis of the reliability of the

Organizational Effectiveness scale was performed next. The 14-item composite had an internal

consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α) of .89, indicating adequate reliability.

Therefore, no changes were made to this scale. In summary, the analysis of the reliability of the

four composite variables used in this study indicated that there was adequate reliability for the

original versions of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, and

organizational effectiveness scales.

Population and Sample Selection

The population for this study consists of software development virtual team members and

leaders, and members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering

Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network. These globally dispersed

virtual team members and leaders provided a statistically significant sample of virtual teams in

the software development industry. All participants had access to the Internet and were able to

answer all survey questions. All participants that consented to participate in the study

downloaded the consent form and signed and returned the consent form via email.

This population provided insight into which leadership styles are most effective in the

virtual team environment. Participants in this study expressed their views on leadership styles

and their effect on virtual team effectiveness. The population sample had experience in virtual

teams and understood the issues and problems associated with them. There were 22 respondents,

64

65

however 2 respondents did not give consent to use their survey responses and were not included

in this study. Therefore the sample size was 20, at the bottom of the expected range. The final

sample size was ultimately determined by the willingness of members of the population to

respond to the online survey.

One of the real advantages of quantitative methods is their ability to use smaller groups

of people to make inferences about larger groups that would be prohibitively expensive to study

(Holton & Burnett, 1997, p. 71). Often, researchers are forced to use small sample sizes because

of practical versus statistical reasons. In these cases, researchers should report both the

appropriate sample sizes along with the sample sizes actually used in the study, the reasons for

using a smaller sample size, and a discuss the effect the sample sizes had on the results of the

study (Barlett, Kotrlik, & Higgins, Spring, 2001).

Descriptive Correlational Research

To gain insight into how the perception of organizational effectiveness correlated with

different demographic groups within the sample, descriptive statistical analysis was performed

on the survey responses. Descriptive design strengthens the proposed study by representing how

the data shows up after collection, cleaning, coding and data entry (Neuman, Plano, Lane, &

Roberts, 2004). Descriptive statistical methods used included; means, median, and standard

deviation. The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the

strength and direction (positive or negative) of the correlation between the variables tested.

However, correlation between variables does not imply causation (Cooper & Schindler, 2006;

Neuman, 2006).

65

66

Demographics

Table 4 contains the descriptive statistics for the demographic and background variables

of gender, ethnicity, educational attainment, age, years of affiliation with the current program,

and years working in the field of offender reentry. The majority of the participants were female

(64.7%). The most common ethnicity was Caucasian (77.27%), with 13.64% African American,

4.55% Hispanics, and 4.55% of mixed or other races. The most common levels of educational

attainment were Master’s degree (50.0%) and a Bachelor’s degree (31.82%), followed by a

Doctoral degree (13.64%), with none of the participants only attaining a High School diploma.

Table 4

Description of the sample (n = 20)

Variable Frequency Percentage Gender

Male 15 75.0

Female 5 25.0

Ethnicity

Caucasian 16 80.0

African American 2 10.0

Hispanic 1 5.0

M SD

Years with current employer 11.725 8.5201

66

67

Years working in the field of

software development

19.700 10.0478

The majority of the participants were in the 46 to 55 age range. On average, the

participants had been affiliated with their current employer for 11.275 years (SD= 8.52 years).

Finally, the participants had been working in the field of software development for an average of

19.70 years (SD = 10.0478 years).

Composite Scores

Table 5 shows descriptive statistics for the five composite scores used in this study. The

three scales from the MLQ-5X were computed as the mean item score for the items associated

with each composite. The MLQ-5X items were rated on a scale from 1 = Not at all to 5 =

Frequently, if not always with higher scores indicating more of each type of leadership. Scores

on the transformation leadership scale (consisting of 20 items) ranged from a minimum (Min) of

2.14 to a Maximum (Max) of 4.95 with a mean of 3.76 (SD = .71). Scores on the transactional

leadership scale (with 16 items) ranged from 1.63 to 5.00 with a mean of 3.01 (SD = .69).

Passive-Avoidant leadership scores (composed of 8 items) ranged from 1.00 to 3.13 with a mean

of 1.65 (SD = .71). Laissez-faire leadership mean scores (composed of 4 items that are a subset

of Passive-Avoidant items) ranged from 1.00 to 3.25 with a mean of 1.60 (SD = .77). The

reliability for the transformational, transactional, Passive-Avoidant, and Laissez-Faire leadership

scales was above the conventional cutoff for an adequate reliability of .70.

The scores for organizational effectiveness were also computed as the mean item score.

Scores on the organizational effectiveness scale (with 14 items scored from 1 = strongly disagree

67

68

to 5 = strongly agree, with higher scores indicating higher levels of organizational effectiveness)

ranged from 3.00 to 5.00 with a mean of 4.15 (SD = .56). The reliability coefficient for this scale

was above the conventional cutoff for an adequate reliability of .70.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics for Composite Scores (n = 20)

Items Min. Max. M SD Transformational Leadership 20 2.14 4.95 3.76 .71

Transactional Leadership 16 1.63 5.00 3.01 .69

Passive Avoidant 8 1.00 3.13 1.65 .71

Laissez-Faire 4 1.00 3.25 1.60 .77

Organizational Effectiveness 14 3.00 5.00 4.05 .54

Data Analysis Methods

The hypotheses of this study were examined using Pearson correlation coefficients (Table

6). Specifically, the three hypotheses of this study relate to the relationship between two

variables measured on interval scales as the five composite scores identified above. Therefore,

Pearson correlation coefficients were selected as the most appropriate statistical measure of the

relationships between these variables. The next section of this chapter consists of an examination

of these hypotheses.

68

69

Table 6

Pearson Correlations Among Composite Scores (n = 20)

Perception of Org.

Effectiveness

Transformational Leadership

Transactional Leadership

Passive Avoidant

Leadership

Laissez-Faire

Leadership Organizational Effectiveness 1.00

Transformational Leadership .569** 1.00

Transactional Leadership .516* .730** 1.00

Passive Avoidant -.627** -.700** -.444* 1.00

Laissez-Faire -.608** -.714** -.474* .962 1.00

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Research Question No. 1

The primary research question of this study was: What is the relationship between

leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and software development

virtual team effectiveness? The Hypothesis for this research question is: There is a positive

relationship between a virtual team leader’s leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey. The corresponding Null Hypothesis is: There

is a non-positive relationship between a virtual team leader’s leadership style and software

69

70

development virtual team effectiveness as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

5X survey and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

Research Question No. 2

The second research question of this study was: Which leadership style is most effective

in leading software development virtual teams? The Hypothesis for this research question is:

There is one specific virtual team leader leadership style that is statistically more effective than

other leadership styles in leading software development virtual teams as measured by the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of Organizational

Effectiveness survey. The corresponding Null Hypothesis is: There is no single specific

leadership style that is statistically more effective than other leadership styles in leading software

development virtual teams as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey

and the Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

Research Question No. 3

The third research question of this study was: Is leader to follower communication time

needed to maintain an effective software development virtual team? Virtual teams do need

Leader to follower communication to maintain statistically significant high performance levels as

measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the Perception of

Organizational Effectiveness survey. The corresponding Null Hypothesis is: Virtual teams do not

need leader to follower communication time to maintain statistically significant high

performance levels as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X survey and the

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness survey.

70

71

An assumption for this study was that the Laissez-Faire style was indicative of less leader

to follower communication between leader and virtual team and that the Transformational

leadership style was indicative of more leader to follower communication between leader and

virtual team. The Laissez-Faire leadership style exhibits frequent absence and lack of

involvement during critical junctures (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen, 2003). This

study assumes that this lack of involvement also manifests itself in the virtual team environment

in a reduced amount of communication between leader and team members. In the virtual team

environment, these communications can take the form of computer-mediated communication

(i.e. email, teleconference, phone, and instant messaging) as well as live meetings at a physical

location or virtually using video conferencing.

Supplemental Analyses

The supplemental analyses examined the relationships between the leadership composite

scores and the demographic variables of gender, ethnicity, education, age, years in the area of

software development, and years with the current organization. For gender, a set of 12

independent samples t tests was performed to compare males and females on the composite

scores, and the results are shown in Table 7.

There were statistically significant differences between males and females on 3 of the 12

composite scores. First, females had higher scores on the inspirational motivation leadership

scale (M = 4.15, SD = .68) than males (M = 3.81, SD = .80), t(18) = -.835, p = .528. Second,

females had higher scores on the intellectual stimulation leadership scale (M= 4.00, SD = .85)

than males (M = 3.76, SD = .73), t(18) = -.597, p = .583. The females scored higher on all other

71

72

leadership scales. The females also scored significantly higher than the males in idealized

attribution (M = 4.05, SD = .82), while the males scored (M = 3.75, SD = .75), t(18) = -.759, p =

-.096. However, it is important to note that the majority of the responders were female (64.7%),

this negatively impacts the validity of the analysis based on gender.

Table 7

Comparisons Based on Gender (n = 20)

Males Females (n=15) (n=5)

Scale Median M SD Median M SD t

Transformational Leadership 4.0 3.70 .71 4.0 3.90 .74 -.525*

Idealized Attribution 4.0 3.75 .75 4.0 4.05 .82 -.759*

Idealized Behavior 4.0 3.66 .76 4.0 3.55 .87 .287*

Inspirational Motivation 4.0 3.81 .80 4.5 4.15 .68 -.835*

Intellectual Stimulation 4.0 3.76 .73 4.5 4.00 .85 -.597*

Individualized Consideration 3.5 3.53 .86 3.5 3.75 .98 -.472*

Transactional Leadership 3.0 3.06 .77 3.0 2.83 .35 .669*

Contingent Reward 3.5 3.41 .87 4.0 3.45 1.08 -.70*

MBE-Passive 1.0 1.63 .70 1.0 1.90 .80 -.713*

MBE-Active 3.0 2.71 1.00 3.0 2.20 .67 1.064*

72

73

*Equal Variances Assumed All Scores have 18 df.

In the comparisons involving race, the sample was divided into two groups: Caucasian (n

= 17) and all others (n = 3). The others consisted of African Americans (n = 2) and Hispanic (n =

1). Table 8 shows the mean and median scores for these two groups on the 12 composite scores

as well as the results of the 12 independent samples t tests. The transformational leadership

scores for Caucasians (M = 3.81, SD = .73) were higher than the scores for all others (M = 3.42,

SD = .49), t(18) = -.872, p = .569. Caucasians also had higher scores on all the Transformational

leadership sub-scales. Caucasians scored significantly higher on the Idealized Behavior scale (M

= 3.75, SD = .76) than all others (M = 3.00, SD = .43), t(18) = 1.627, p = .445.

For the Transactional leadership scale, Caucasians and Others had similar scores.

However, for the Transactional leadership sub-scales of the Median scores were higher for the

Others in the Contingent Reward and MBE-Passive sub-scales. Others scored significantly

higher on the Contingent Reward scale (Median = 4.00) than Caucasians (Median = 3.00), t(18)

= .186, p = .494. Others also scored significantly higher on the MBE-Passive scale (Median =

1.50) than Caucasians (Median = 1.00), t(18) = -.559, p = .494.

For the Laissez-Faire leadership scale, again Caucasians and Others had similar scores.

However, the Others had a significantly higher Median score than the Caucasians. Others scored

Laissez-Faire Leadership 1.0 1.58 .77 1.0 1.65 .86 -.164*

Perception of Org. Effectiveness 4.0 4.06 .50 4.0 4.02 .69 .117*

73

74

significantly higher on the Laissez-Faire leadership scale (Median = 2.00) than Caucasians

(Median = 1.00), t(18) = -.561, p = -.608.

Table 8

Comparisons Based on Race (n = 20)

Caucasian Others (n=17) (n=3)

Scale Median M SD Median M SD t

Transformational Leadership 4.0 3.81 .73 4.0 3.42 .49 .872

Idealized Attribution 4.0 3.85 .77 4.0 3.67 .80 .384

Idealized Behavior 4.0 3.75 .76 3.0 3.00 .43 1.627

Inspirational Motivation 4.5 3.96 .80 4.0 3.58 .52 .767

Intellectual Stimulation 4.5 3.88 .76 4.0 3.50 .66 .814

Individualized Consideration 3.5 3.63 .90 3.5 3.33 .76 .538

Transactional Leadership 3.0 3.00 .70 3.0 3.00 .76 .017

Contingent Reward 3.0 3.44 .94 4.0 3.33 .76 .186

MBE-Passive 1.0 1.66 .70 1.5 1.91 .87 -.559

MBE-Active 3.0 2.57 .94 3.0 2.66 1.13 -.154

Laissez-Faire Leadership 1.0 1.55 .78 2.0 1.83 .76 -.561

74

75

*Equal Variances Assumed. All scores have 18 df.

In the comparisons involving educational attainment, the sample was divided into two

groups: Bachelor's or lower (n = 6) and Master's or higher (n = 14). Table 9 shows the mean and

median scores for these two groups on the 12 composite scores as well as the results of the 12

independent samples t tests. For the Transformational leadership scale, Median scores were

similar for both educational groupings. However, for the Mean scores, the Bachelor's or Lower

group, scored higher for Transformational Leadership scales, except for the Intellectual

Stimulation scale. On the Intellectual Stimulation scale, the Bachelor's or Lower group scored

(M = 3.79, SD = .70). The Master's or Higher group scored (M = 3.84, SD = .79), t(18) = -.128,

p = .561. However, this difference between the two scores were not significant.

For the Transactional leadership scale, Mean scores were similar for both educational

groupings. However, for the Median scores, the Bachelor's or Lower group, scored higher for the

Contingent Reward scale. The Bachelor's or Lower group scored significantly higher on the

Contingent Reward scale (Median = 4.00) than Master's or Higher group (Median = 3.00), t(18)

= .238, p = .494. The Master's or Higher group also scored significantly higher on the MBE-

Active scale (Median = 3.00) than Bachelor's or Lower group (Median = 2.50), t(18) = -1.480, p

= .282. For both Bachelor's or Lower and Master's or Higher groups there were no significant

differences between the Laissez-Faire leadership Mean and Median scores. The same can be

Perception of Org. Effectiveness 4.0 4.12 .54 4.0 3.64 .37 1.485

75

76

said of the Perception of Effectiveness scores for both Bachelor's or Lower and Master's or

Higher groups.

Table 9

Comparisons Based on Education (n = 20)

Bachelor's or Lower Master's or Higher (n=6) (n=14)

Scale Median M SD Median M SD t

Transformational Leadership 4.00 3.82 .61 4.00 3.72 .76 .288

Idealized Attribution 4.00 4.04 .58 4.00 3.73 .82 .831

Idealized Behavior 4.00 3.71 .62 4.00 3.60 .84 .264

Inspirational Motivation 4.25 3.92 .61 4.25 3.89 .85 .062

Intellectual Stimulation 4.00 3.79 .70 4.25 3.84 .79 -.128

Individualized Consideration 3.75 3.67 .79 3.50 3.55 .93 .260

Transactional Leadership 3.00 2.81 .47 3.00 3.09 .76 -.816

Contingent Reward 4.00 3.50 .82 3.00 3.39 .95 .238

MBE-Passive 1.00 1.46 .78 1.00 1.80 .69 -.990

MBE-Active 2.50 2.13 .72 3.00 2.78 .98 -1.480

Laissez-Faire Leadership 1.00 1.42 .80 1.00 1.68 .77 -.690

Perception of Org. Effectiveness 4.00 3.96 .58 4.00 4.09 .53 -.478

76

77

All scores have 18 df.

The remaining demographic variables (age, years working in software development, and

years working with the current organization) are continuous variables, and therefore Pearson

correlations were computed between these three variables and scores on the 5 composite

variables. These correlations are shown in Table 10. The Age variable was negatively correlated

with the Transformational and Transactional Leadership scales, indicating that older participants

had lower Transformational and Transactional leadership scores. The Age variable was

positively correlated with the Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scale, the older

participants had higher Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scores. The Years with

Current Employer variable was positively correlated with the Transformational and

Transactional Leadership scales, indicating that participants with more years with current

employer had higher Transformational and Transactional leadership scores. The Years with

Current Employer variable was negatively correlated with the Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-

Faire Leadership scale, the participants with fewer years with current employer had higher

Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scores. It is important to note that there is no

direct correlation between a participants years with their current employer and their age. There is

a direct correlation between a participant's Age and their Years in Software Development

variable. As a result, the Age and Years in Software Development variables correlate in a similar

manner to the Leadership scales. The Years in Software Development variable correlates

negatively with the Transactional Leadership scale, indicating that participants with more years

in the software development industry had lower Transactional leadership score. The Years in

77

78

Software Development variable correlates weakly positively with the Transformational, Passive-

Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scales. The highest correlation was with the Laissez-

Faire scale. This indicates that participants with more years in the software development industry

had higher Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scores. Relative to the Perception of

Organizational Effectiveness scale, Age had no correlation, while the other variables were both

positively correlated. This indicates that both Years with Current Employer and Years in

Software Development increase the participants perception of the organization's effectiveness

increases.

Table 10

Pearson Correlations between Composite Mean Scores and Age, Years with Current Employer,

and Years in Software Development (n = 20)

Scale Age Years with

Current Employer

Years in Software

Development

Transformational Leadership -.111 .331 .014

Transactional Leadership -.030 .314 -.060

Passive Avoidant Leadership .294 -.226 .018

Laissez-Faire Leadership .249 -.213 .095

Perception of Org. Effectiveness .000 .331 .145

78

79

Chapter Summary

The results related to the three research questions of this study were presented in this

chapter. The first research question of this study was: What is the relationship between

leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and the perception of

organizational effectiveness? The correlations as shown in Table 3 indicate that transformational

leadership scores and transactional leadership scores were positively related to the perception of

organizational effectiveness scores. However, laissez-faire leadership scores were negatively

related to the perception of organizational effectiveness scores, indicating that participants who

had higher scores on the laissez-faire leadership scale tended to have lower levels of the

perception of organizational effectiveness.

The second research question of this study was: Which leadership style (transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire) is most effective in leading virtual teams? Again as shown in

Table 3, the results showed that the transformational and transactional leadership scores were

positively correlated to the organizational effectiveness scores, but laissez-faire leadership scores

were negatively related to organizational effectiveness scores. This indicated that participants

with higher laissez-faire leadership scores tended to feel that their organization was not as

effective.

The third research question of this study was: Is leader to follower communication time

needed to maintain an effective virtual software development team? As discussed earlier, the

79

80

Laissez-Faire and Passive-Avoidant Leadership styles are indicative of leaders that spend little

time with their followers. As a result this study assumes that the same is true of these leadership

styles in the virtual team environment. Therefore, as shown in Table 3, the Transformational and

Transactional leadership styles are positively correlated with the participant's perception of

organizational effectiveness. Since these styles are indicative of more communication between

leader and follower, the results indicate that leader to follower communication is a factor in the

increased perception of organizational effectiveness. This communication can take the form of

computer-mediated communication (i.e. email, teleconference, phone, and instant messaging) as

well as actual leader to follower meetings at a physical location or virtually using video

conferencing.

Supplemental analyses were also performed to examine other possible relationships

among the study variables. First, females had higher scores on the inspirational motivation

leadership scale and the intellectual stimulation leadership scale than males. The females also

scored significantly higher than the males in idealized attribution. In the comparisons involving

race, the sample was divided into two groups Caucasians and Others which consisted of African

Americans and a Hispanic. The Caucasians scored higher in the transformational leadership scale

and on all the Transformational leadership sub-scales. Caucasians also scored significantly

higher on the Idealized Behavior scale than the Others. For the Transactional leadership scale,

Caucasians and Others had similar scores. However, Others scored significantly higher on the

Contingent Reward scale. Others also scored significantly higher on the MBE-Passive scale than

the Caucasians. The Age variable was negatively correlated with the Transformational and

80

81

Transactional Leadership scales, indicating that older participants had lower Transformational

and Transactional leadership scores. The Years with Current Employer variable was negatively

correlated with the Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scale, the participants with

fewer years with current employer had higher Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership

scores. A weak correlation was shown between Years in Software Development and higher

Passive-Avoidant and Laissez-Faire Leadership scores. This may indicate that the more senior

software developer virtual team members do not feel they need strong leadership.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that transformational leadership scores and transactional

leadership scores were positively related to the perception of organizational effectiveness scores.

Conversely, this study's results indicated that participants with higher laissez-faire leadership

scores tended to feel that their organization was not as effective. The positive correlation

between the Transformational leadership scores and the participant's perception of organizational

effectiveness, indicate that more communication between leader and follower is a factor in the

increased perception of organizational effectiveness. Chapter 5 discusses the results,

implications, findings, limitations, delimitations of the study, and provides the conclusions of the

researcher based on the descriptive correlational analysis of the survey data. In addition, chapter

5 presents a discussion of the literature related to the core variables, offers recommendations

based on the study findings, and suggestions for future research.

81

82

82

83

Chapter 5

Conclusions, and Recommendations

The results of this study showed a correlation between laissez-faire leadership and

organizational commitment and perception of organizational effectiveness. Virtual team

members organizational commitment and perceptions of organizational effectiveness were

measurably associated with a specific leadership style. Virtual team software development

professionals (n = 20) participated in this study. Each respondent answered 59 survey items

from two separate self-administered instruments that were accessed via a link to survey monkey.

In this quantitative correlational study, the following three research questions were

explored:

1. What is the relationship between leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness?

2. What leadership style is most effective in leading software development virtual

teams?

3. Is leader to follower communication time needed to maintain an effective software

development virtual team?

Chapter 4 presented the research study results, which showed a significant correlation

between the leadership style and perception of organizational effectiveness. Chapter 5 includes a

discussion of the study results, implications, findings, limitations, delimitations, and conclusions

based on data analysis. In addition, chapter 5 presents a discussion of the literature related to the

83

84

core variables, offer recommendations based on the study findings, and suggestions for future

research.

Leadership Theories

As noted in Chapter 3, Contemporary thinking on leadership styles developed in the late

twentieth century and focused on three types of leadership the Transformational, Transactional,

and Passive or Laissez-Faire leadership styles (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramanium, 2003).

The laissez-faire leadership style is essentially a lack of leadership that manifests itself as non-

leadership behavior with a tendency towards escaping responsibilities (Ryan & Tipu, 2013). A

leader cannot be both transformational and passive avoidant. Transformational leadership is

active – formulating and expressing vision and shared goals, giving feedback, providing

encouragement – and requires engagement far beyond the range of the passive avoidant leader

(Frooman, Mendelson, & Murphy, 2012). The transactional leader is one who operates within

the existing system or culture, has an inclination toward risk avoidance, and focuses on time

constraints, standards, and efficiency (Bass, 1985).

Comparison of Findings to the Literature

The current research adds to the body of knowledge concerning transformational

leadership, organizational commitment, and perception of performance within a virtual team and

software development environment. This study focused on the association between

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles and perception of

organizational effectiveness for software development virtual team members. This study is

84

85

unique in comparison to previous research, because this study is focused on the software

development virtual team environment in relation to the study variables.

Convergent Findings. This study is convergent with previous research in relation to

revealing that there are measurable associations between transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire leadership styles, and organizational effectiveness on various levels and in other

fields of study. The leader must be willing to focus on each team member and learn what makes

him or her operate successfully. Additionally, team leaders should influence team members

through various non-traditional methods of leadership, such as virtual meetings,

videoconference, etc. (Van Pelt, 2009). Relative to gender correlations with the transformational

and transactional leadership styles, the study also converged with the findings of previous

studies. The gender comparisons on effectiveness that were available suggest that

transformational leadership must be effective for women as well as men. Specifically, in the

large MLQ Norming Study, which yielded male–female comparisons on the outcomes of

leadership in terms of extra effort, satisfaction, and effectiveness, these outcomes were

somewhat more positive for female than male leaders (Eagly, 2003).

Divergent Findings. This study is divergent in relation to previous research. This study

focused primarily on the relationship between leadership styles and the perception of software

developers on organizational effectiveness of their virtual team leaders. Previous studies focused

on virtual team management and discussed the technologies available to assist in virtual team

management. The findings of earlier studies (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 2004; Northouse, 2007)

appear to be in general agreement concerning the relationship between transformational

85

86

leadership and organizational commitment within select context. The results of this study found

that the lack of effective leadership relates to the virtual team member's perception of

organizational effectiveness. This study fills gaps in the body of knowledge concerning

leadership styles and virtual team leadership in the software development context.

Contributions to the Literature. This study adds to the literature concerning the

relationship between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles and the

perception of organizational effectiveness within a software development virtual team

environment. The study, found a positive correlation between transformational and transactional

leadership, and the perception of organizational effectiveness within a software development

virtual team environment. The study, also found a negative correlation between laissez-faire

leadership and perception of organizational effectiveness within a software development virtual

team environment. Although empirically separable, these two types of leadership—

transformational and transactional—are both displayed by effective leaders. In addition to these

two styles, these researchers distinguished a laissez-faire style that is marked by a general failure

to take responsibility for managing (Eagly, 2003).

Analysis of Findings and Data

This research study focused on the perceptions of surveyed software development virtual

team members that were also members of the Virtual Teams subgroup of Software Engineering

Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social Network relative to transformational

leadership, organizational commitment, and perception of organizational effectiveness. Study

participants completed two surveys: the MLQ-5X and the Perception of Organization

86

87

Effectiveness surveys, which totaled 59 items. Data collection occurred via self-administered

electronic surveys that were accessed by a link in the LinkedIn Social Network between April

15, 2014 and January 17, 2015. Survey participation was voluntary and respondents provided

informed consent. The study findings supported a relationship between leadership style,

organizational commitment, and perception of performance within two offender reentry

programs.

Research Questions

The following research questions were used to guide this study:

1. What is the relationship between leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness?

2. What leadership style is most effective in leading software development virtual

teams?

3. Is leader to follower communication time needed to maintain an effective software

development virtual team?

Results of Study. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between

leadership styles, and the perception of organizational effectiveness for virtual teams in the

software development environment. This study showed that the transformational and

transactional leadership styles are positively correlated with the perception of organizational

effectiveness by software development professionals in virtual teams. No causal relationship

existed between the independent variables (leadership styles) and dependent variable

(perceptions of organization effectiveness) of this research study.

87

88

Limitations

This study explored a unique population within the software development industry.

Specifically, the population consisted of software developers working as members of virtual

teams. The sample size was small (n = 20) as expected. Because interval data was analyzed,

Pearson coefficient was appropriate for this study instead of other analysis method such as

Spearman (e.g., ordinal). Pearson coefficient is parametric analysis, which offers a higher

statistical value than would be offered in a non-parametric technique. The small sample size

reduces the generalizability of the findings beyond this study. The limitations of a small sample

size centers on a lower statistical significance.

On closer analysis, there is a relationship between various study variables, but the sample

size was not large enough for it to be statistically significant. A quantitative approach was

selected instead of a qualitative or mixed methods approach because the desire was to use several

best practice instruments to gather data in relation to the core variables of transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, and perception of organizational effectiveness as

opposed to respondent interpretation of the study concepts. Therefore, this study focused a small

unique sample population, which was appropriate in relation to scope and time constraints.

Future research can use larger sample sizes. A quantitative research approach trailed with a

qualitative or mixed method serve to support the original quantitative findings and add to the

body of knowledge (Bachman & Schutt, 2003).

Participant honesty in survey responses were also a limitation. This study was reliant on

the honesty of the study’s population, which included only members of the Virtual Teams

88

89

subgroup of Software Engineering Productivity/SEPforum.net group of the LinkedIn Social

Network. As the survey was available to any member of the Virtual Teams forum, there was no

way to verify the survey responses. Future studies on this topic may be performed as case studies

on specific virtual teams.

This study used a self-administered survey method as opposed to an interview or case

study approach. Survey instruments were collected via the Survey Monkey website. Internal

validity, external validity, reliability, scope of measurement, and statistical analysis held natural

limitations in varying degrees. Validity refers to accuracy or correctness in research. Internal

factors question the internal validity of research, whereas, external factors impugn the external

validity of findings (Hagan, 2006). Internal validity assesses if the instrument produces results

that are purposeful (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). The ability to draw conclusions and to

generalize results to the population is predicated on obtaining purposeful results, verifying

external validity (Yokell, 2010).

Delimitations

Three primary delimitations existed and limited the external validity of this study.

1. The study only focused on software development professionals that have participated

in virtual teams and who participated voluntarily in the study, which resulted in a small sample

size.

2. The survey did not target any specific software development project.

3. The survey did not target any specific virtual team leader.

89

90

The decision to focus only on software development professionals that have participated

in virtual teams was to get the perspectives of a geographically and demographically diverse

population of software development professionals.

Implications

Gaining a better understanding software development virtual team operation,

implementation, and sustainability issues are important for the field of software development and

to society as a whole as the lessons learned can be adapted to other fields of endeavor as society

becomes more virtual as a result of the increasing connectivity and use of the Internet as a work

tool. This study provides relevant evidence that leadership style relates to the level of

organizational commitment and perception that an employee exhibits within a given program or

organization. This study found that laissez-faire leadership was negatively related to participants

perception of organizational effectiveness, indicating that participants who had higher scores on

the laissez-faire leadership scale tended to perceive their organization as being less effective. The

study found that there were three statistically significant correlations. As such, age and years

with current employer, and total years in the software development industry are associated with

the perception of organizational effectiveness.

From a theoretical perspective, this research is consistent with the body of knowledge

concerning leadership theory (Northouse, 2007), which asserted that leadership is associated

followership. The research methodology used for this study was appropriate, but future studies

should explore qualitative or mixed method approaches in an effort to broaden the scope of

research and potential knowledge. Subsequently, software developers and software industry

90

91

leadership should seek to gain insight concerning the relationship between leadership styles and

the perception of organizational effectiveness. Erickson et al., (2007) found that an organization

under the stewardship of an in-effective leader would more than likely produce less committed

employees and result in poor performing programs.

Transformational Leadership. Transformational leadership is the process whereby a

person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and

morality in both the leader and the follower (Northouse, 2007). Khanini (2007) asserted that

leadership should be observed in context and applicability. Northouse (2007) elaborated that a

leader exhibits either transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, or another leadership style

within an organizational environment. Northouse (2007) put forth that transformational leaders

are aware of subordinates needs and wants. Khanini (2007) argued that a mutually beneficial

and mentoring-type relationship is developed between a transformational leadership and

followers. Khanini (2007) found that employee level of work performance and organizational

commitment increases under the direction of a transformational leader.

From a theoretical perspective, Khanini (2007) asserted that transactional leadership

focus on a punishments and rewards relation between a leaders and followers. Northouse (2007)

elaborated that transactional leaders develop a mutually advantageous quid pro quo relationship

with followers. Khanini (2007) found that an agreement concerning outcomes and incentives are

foundational for transactional leaders and subordinates based on contingent rewards. Northouse

(2007) maintained that transactional leadership has a foundation of contingent rewards and

management-by-exception. From a practical approach, Khanini (2007) contended that a laissez-

91

92

faire leader is less likely to improve the performance or commitment level of employees.

Khanini (2007) argued that in comparison to transactional leadership and transformational

leadership, laissez-faire leadership is a non-leadership construct.

Perceptions of Organizational Effectiveness. The research study in addition to the

MLQ survey used a survey to assess the participants’ perception of organizational effectiveness

(see Appendix D). This survey was originally developed by Dr. Leon Geter for a quantitative

cross-sectional study that explored whether or not the observed leadership styles within two San

Francisco Bay area offender reentry programs related to effective program implementation and

outcomes (Geter, 2010). The scale for perception of organizational effectiveness consists of 14

Likert-type items that ranged from strongly disagrees to strongly agree. Higher scores represent a

perception of an effective organization, whereas lower scores indicate a perception of an

ineffective organization (Geter, 2010).

Significance for Leadership and Software Development Virtual teams

Leaders of the virtual environment are at somewhat of a disadvantage from traditional

team leaders because the leaders do not interact with team members in person on a daily basis

and are unable to gauge the team member’s feelings or mood simply based on physical

observance (Van Pelt, 2009). As the results of this study have shown, the Laissez-Faire

leadership style is negatively correlated to the perception of organizational effectiveness.

Recommendations

The results of this study provides understanding of factors associated with effective

virtual team leadership styles, the following recommendations are advisory for policy

92

93

considerations and future research suggestions. Leadership and followership are related with

software development, implementation, and sustainability. The current study found that there is a

measureable positive correlation between the transformational and transactional leadership styles

and the perception of organizational effectiveness. As a result of this positive correlation, it is

recommended that software development virtual team leaders communicate with their team

members using every mode communication available to them and as often as possible. Leaders

of the virtual environment must initiate ways to build relationships and get to know team

members, whether by email, phone, videoconferences, etc. Leaders visiting team members at the

specific location can better understand the challenge team members are facing (Van Pelt, 2009).

As virtual teams are still relatively new concepts in industry this study recommends that training

be provided to virtual team leaders. Training is recommended for new virtual environment

leaders. This training should provide tips for successful virtual team operation, as well as how to

adhere to the company policies and procedures in the virtual environment (Van Pelt, 2009).

The study confirmed the importance of gaining a better appreciation for factors that are

associated with software development professional behaviors within virtual teams. The following

recommendations provide opportunities to further the body of knowledge, understanding of what

factors drive software development virtual team member perceptions of organization

effectiveness.

Future Research Suggestions

This research study showed a measureable relationship between leadership styles and

perception of effectiveness with software development virtual team members. Understanding the

93

94

relationship between the research study variables offers an opportunity for virtual team leaders to

create a culture of effective leadership and positive perceptions of performance in virtual

software development environments.

Future research should expand the scope of this study by conducting a longitudinal study

with a larger number of virtual team software development project survey participants. By

gaining a better understanding of the leadership construct within software development virtual

teams, virtual team leaders can improve software development efficiency, save cost, and enhance

perception of organizational effectiveness by virtual team members. Based on findings from the

current study, future research should explore the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between any leadership style and the perception of

organizational effectiveness in a specific software development virtual team?

2. What is the relationship between leadership style, perception of organizational

effectiveness and the level of geographic distance (i.e. state-wide, regional, international) in

software development virtual teams?

3. What is the minimum leader to follower communication time needed between virtual

team leader and followers actually required to maintain effective software development virtual

teams?

4. What effect could employee turnover have on the effectiveness of software

development virtual teams?

94

95

Chapter Summary

The finding showed a significant positive correlation between transformational and

transactional leadership and organizational effectiveness. This study showed that participants

with higher transformational and transactional leadership scores tended to believe that their

organization was more effective. The independent variable was transformational leadership. The

dependent variable was perception of organizational effectiveness within the population of

software development professionals surveyed. Twenty (n = 20) software development

professionals participated in this study.

This study provides insight and analysis for the research questions:

1. What is the relationship between leadership style and software development virtual

team effectiveness?

2. What leadership style is most effective in leading software development virtual

teams?

3. Is leader to follower communication time needed to maintain an effective software

development virtual team?

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire 5X and Perception of Organizational

Effectiveness survey were used for this study. The instruments for this study were valid and

reliable. The surveys used for this study were appropriate. Leadership theories (e.g., Northouse,

2007) illustrated that path-goal theory, leader-member exchange theory, Hersey and Blanchard’s

situational leadership, expectancy theory, and full-range transformational leadership theory

provide insight in the leadership construct. Research (e.g., Baruch & Ramalho, 2006; Listwan,

95

96

2009; Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Somech, 2006) showed that the association between leaders and

subordinates within a work environment related to employee output, employee commitment,

worker effort, and organizational performance.

Conclusion

A broad body of literature exists about transformational leadership and perception of

organizational effectiveness as single variables, but research concerning these collective

variables prior to this study in the software development and virtual team environments has been

minimal.

This research study sought to explore what factors may have been associated with

effective leadership and organizational effectiveness. This study found that perceptions of

laissez-faire leadership were associated with lower perceptions of organizational effectiveness.

This quantitative correlational research study is the first known descriptive study to focus on the

variables of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership and perception software

development virtual team leader effectiveness. The current research study adds to the leadership

and virtual team body of knowledge.

This study has major implications for organizations interested in developing more

effective virtual teams as a result of organizational expansion due to acquisitions and mergers, or

the desire to save on the cost of facilities by allowing workers to work at a distance or from their

homes. Leadership style becomes a factor to consider in relation to program development,

operation, and effectiveness over the long-term.

96

97

This current study narrows the focus of virtual team research in relation to leadership

style and perception of organizational effectiveness in association with software development.

Stojkovic and Farkas (2003) asserted that organizational leadership inspire and motivate workers

toward a common vision. Lee and Chang (2006) argued that the leader’s vision and degree of

commitment are core factors in moving an organization’s strategic plan forward in relation to

successful outcomes. Therefore, gaining a better understanding of which leadership style is most

effective within an software development virtual team environment is critical for developing

successful virtual teams.

97

98

References

Anantatmula, V. S., & Rad, P. F. (2009). Attributes of a Harmonious Project Team. AACE

International Transactions, 000.000.1-000.000.9.

Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramanium, N. (2003, June). Context & leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261-295.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual

& sampler set. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (2003). Adding the “E” to E-Leadership: How it may impact your

leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 325–338.

Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S. S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-Leadership – Implications for Theory,

Research, and Practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.

Baker, G. (2002). The effects of synchronous collaborative technologies on decision making: a

study of virtual teams. Information Resources Management Journal, 15(4), 79–93.

Bachman, R., & Schutt, R. K. (2003). The practice of research in criminology and criminal

justice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

98

99

Barkhi, R., Amiri, A., & James, T. L. (2006). A study of communication and coordination in

collaborative software development. Journal of Global Information Technology

Management, 9(1), 44-61.

Bartlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). Matrix management: Not a structure, a frame of mind.

Harvard Business Review, 68(4), 138-145.

Bartlett, J., E., Kotrlik, J., W., & Higgins, C., C., (Spring, 2001). Organizational research:

Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology,

Learning, and Performance Journal, 19.1, 43-50.

Baruch, Y., & Ramalho, N. (2006). Communalities and distinctions in the measurement of

organizational performance and effectiveness across for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 39-65.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1994). Transformational leadership and team and organizational decision making.

In Bass, B. and Avolio, B. (Eds.) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through

Transformational Leadership, (pp.104-120). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1995). Transformational Leadership Redux. Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 463-468.

Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial

applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1990). Developing transformational leadership: 1992 and beyond.

Journal of European Industrial Training, 14(5), 21-27.

99

100

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership and organizational culture.

Public Administration Quarterly, 17(1), 112-121.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through

transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Bass, B. M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bennett, T. M. (2009). A study of the management leadership style preferred by IT subordinates.

Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications & Conflict, 13(2), 1-25.

Black, T. R. (1999). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated approach

to research design, measurement and statistics. London, England: Sage.

Brake, T. (2006). Leading global virtual teams. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(3), 116-

121.

Brymer, E., & Gray, T. (2006). Effective leadership: Transformational or

transactional? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,10(2), 13-19.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Burns, N., Grove, S.K. (1999). Understanding Nursing Research. (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W.B.

Saunders Company.

Carte, T. A., Chidambaram, L., & Becker, A. (2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed

virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors.

Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 323-343.

Cascio, W. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3),

100

101

81-90.

Casey, V. (2010). Developing trust in virtual software development teams. Journal of

Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 5(2), 41-58.

Casey, V., & Richardson, I. (2009). Implementation of Global Software Development: a

structured approach. Software Process: Improvement & Practice, 14(5), 247-262.

Cervone, F. H. (2007) The system development life cycle and digital library development, OCLC

Systems & Services, 23(4), 348 – 352.

Chemers, M. M. (1984). Contemporary leadership theory. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s

companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 83-99). New York: The Free

Press.

Cohen, S., & Mankin, D. (1999). Collaboration in the virtual organization. Trends in

Organizational Behavior, 6, 105-120.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:

A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job

performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909-927.

Conchúir, E. Ó., Ågerfalk, P. J., Olsson, H. H., & Fitzgerald, B. (August, 2009). Global software

development: where are the benefits?. Communications of the ACM 52(8), 127-131.

Conchúir, E. Ó., Ågerfalk, P. J., Olsson, H. H., & Fitzgerald, B. (2009). Benefits of global

software development: exploring the unexplored. Software Process: Improvement &

Practice, 14(4), 201-212.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New York, New

101

102

York: McGraw Hill.

Couto, R. A. (1993). The transformation of transforming leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The

leader’s companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 102-113). New York:

The Free Press.

Crandall, W., & Longge, G. (2005). An update on telecommuting: Review and prospects for

emerging issues. SAM Advanced Management Journal (07497075), 70(3), 30-37.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Curlee, W. (2008). Modern virtual project management: The effects of a centralized and

decentralized project management office. Project Management Journal, 39(Supplement),

S83-S95.

Dai, Y., Dai, Y., Chen, H, & Wu, H., (2013) Transformational vs transactional leadership: which

is better?: A study on employees of international tourist hotels in Taipei City,

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25(5), pp.760 – 778.

Dani, S. S., Burns, N. D., Backhouse, C. J., & Kochhar, A. K. (2006). The implications of

organizational culture and trust in the working of virtual teams. Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 220, 951-959.

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Mijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997, March). Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 70, 19-35.

Desantis, G., & Monge, P. (2000) Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for

102

103

virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6), 693-703.

Dess, G.G. & Miller, A. (1993) Strategic Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E., & Spangler, W.D. (2004) Transformational

leadership and team performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management,

17(2), 177-193.

Duarte, D., & Snyder, N. (2001). Mastering virtual teams (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Dube’, L., & Robey, D. (2008). Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork. Information

Systems Journal, 19, 3-30.

Duffy, M., & Chenail, R. (2008). Values in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Counseling &

Values, 53(1), 22.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and

men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569-591.

Elkins, T. (2000). Virtual teams connect and collaborate. IIE Solutions. 26-32.

Fan, K., Chen, Y., Wang, C., Chen, M., (2014). E-leadership effectiveness in virtual teams:

Motivating language perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(3), 421-

437.

Fink, A. (2003). The survey handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frooman, J., Mendelson, M., B., Murphy, J., K., (2012). Transformational and passive avoidant

leadership as determinants of absenteeism. Leadership & Organization Development

103

104

Journal, 33(5), 447-463.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about

telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual

consequences. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524-1541.

Gephart Jr., R. P. (2004). Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal.

Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454-462.

Geter, L., T., Sr.. (2010). A quantitative study on the relationship between transformational

leadership, organizational commitment, and perception of effectiveness (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3452327)

Geurts, J. F. (2005). The special challenges of leading geographically dispersed teams. The Free

Library. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The special challenges of leading

geographically dispersed teams.-a0132839887

Geyer, A. L., & Steyrer, J. M. (1998). Transformational leadership and objective performance in

banks. Applied Psychology, 47(3), 397-420.

Govindarajan V, Gupta AK (2001). Building an effective global business team. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 42(4):63–71.

Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 3(1), Article 4. Retrieved from

http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment

with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), (59-82).

104

105

Guzzo, R.A. & Shea, G.P. (1992), Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations,

In Dunnette, M. and Hough, L. (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 3 (pp. 268-313).

Hagan, F. E. (2006). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (7th ed.) Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Hambley, L. A., O'Neill, T. A., & Kline T. J. B. (2006) Virtual team leadership: The effects of

leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 (pp. 1-20).

Hambley, L. A., O'Neill, T. A., & Kline, T. J. B. (2007). Virtual team leadership: Perspectives

from the field. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3(1), 40-45,47-48,50-64.

Hans, J. T. (2004). Project management, information technology, and information

systems. Engineering Management Journal, 16(2), 1-2.

Herbsleb, J.D. (2007). Global Software Engineering: The Future of Socio-technical

Coordination. In L. C. Briond and A. L. Wolf (Eds.) Proceedings of the International

Conference on Software Engineering, 188–198. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society

Press.

Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current

empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15(1), 69–95.

Hitson, M., C., (2008). An analysis of leadership methodology and job satisfaction among virtual

team members (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and

Theses. (UMI No. 3324077)

105

106

Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2000). Virtual teams: Anticipating the impact of virtuality on team

process and performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings 2000 OCIS (pp. C1-

C6).

Hollingshead, A. B. (2004). Communication technologies, the internet, and group research. In M.

B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Applied Social Psychology 301–317. Blackwell

Publishing: Malden, MA.

Holton, E. H., & Burnett, M. B. (1997). Qualitative research methods. In R. A. Swanson & E. F.

Holton (Eds.), Human resource development research handbook: Linking research and

practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Huang, R., Kahai, S., & Jestice, R. (September, 2010). The contingent effects of leadership on

team collaboration in virtual teams, Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1098-1110.

Hycner, R. H. (1985). Some Guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data.

Human Studies, 8(3), 279-303.

Ibrahim, M. S., Ghavifekr, S., Ling, S., Siraj, S., Azeez, M. I. K. (2014). Can transformational

leadership influence on teachers' commitment towards organization, teaching profession,

and students learning? A quantitative analysis. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(2),

177-190.

Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-

Mediated Communication, 3(4), 1.

Javed, T., Maqsood, M., & Durrani, Q., S. (2006) Managing geographically distributed clients

throughout the project management life cycle. Project Management Institute, 37(5) 76-

106

107

87.

Johnson, W. H. (2004). How hard can it be to communicate? Communication mode and

performance in collaborative R & D projects. In S. H. Godar, & S. P. Ferris (Eds.),

Virtual and collaborative teams: Process, technologies and practice (pp. 174-192).

Kanste, O., Miettunen, J., & Kyngas, H. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire among nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 57(2), 201-212.

Khanini, D. (2007). Contrasting Burns and Bass: Does the transactional-transformational

paradigm live up to Burn’s philosophy of transactional leadership? Journal of Leadership

Studies, 1(3), 7-25.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B., & Wei, K., K., (2006/2007, Winter). Conflict and performance in

global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237-274.

Kayworth, T. K., & Leidner, D. E. (2001/2002, Winter). Leadership effectiveness in global

virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7-40.

Kelloway, E., K., Barling, J., Kelley, E., Comtois, J., Gatien, B., (2003) Remote transformational

leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 163 – 171.

Kendrick, J. (2011). Transformational leadership. Professional Safety, 56(11), 14.

Khatri, N., Templer, K. J., & Budhwar, P. S. (2012). Great (transformational)

leadership=charisma+vision. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 1(1), 38-

62.

Kotter, J. P. (1990). What leaders really do. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader’s companion:

Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 114-123). New York: The Free Press.

107

108

Kratochwill, T. R., & Mace, F. C. (1984). Time-series research in psychotherapy. In M. Hersen,

L. Michelson, & A. S. Bellack (Eds.). Issues in psychotherapy research (pp.171-225).

New York: Plenum.

LaBrosse, M. (2008). Managing virtual teams. Employment Relations Today (Wiley), 35(2), 81-

86.

Lakshman, M., Sinha, L., Biswas, M., Charles, M., & Arora, N. K. (2000). Quantitative vs

qualitative research methods. Indian Journal Of Pediatrics, 67(5), 369-377.

Latane, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M., & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance matters:

Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(8), 795-

805.

Lee, Y., & Chang, H. (2006). Leadership style and innovation ability: An empirical study of

Taiwanese wire and cable companies. Journal of American Academy of Business,

Cambridge, 9(2), 218-222.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Levasseur, R. E. (2012). People Skills: Leading Virtual Teams--A Change Management

Perspective. Interfaces, 42(2), 213-216.

Listwan, S. J. (2009). Reentry for serious and violent offenders: An analysis of program attrition.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, 70(2), 1-16.

Liu, J., Liu, X., & Zeng, X. (2011). Does transactional leadership count for team

innovativeness?: The moderating role of emotional labor and the mediating role of team

108

109

efficacy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 282-298.

Loon, M., Lim, Y. M., Teck, H. L., & Cai, L. T. (2012). Transformational leadership and job-

related learning. Management Research Review, 35(3), 192-205.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramanium, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of

transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis of the MLQ literature. The

Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425.

Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Rosen, B. (2007). Leading Virtual Teams. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 21(1), 60-70.

Manochehri, G., & Pinkerton, T. (2003, January). Managing telecommuters: Opportunities and

challenges. American Business Review, 21(1), 9-16.

Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M.T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and

where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McLean, J. (2007). Managing global virtual teams. The British Journal of Administrative

Management, 16-16.

McManus, J., & Wood-Harper, T. (2003). Information systems project management: The price

of failure. Management Services, 47(5), 16-16.

McNurlin, B. C., Sprague Jr., R. H., & Bui, T. (2009). Information systems management in

practice (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mishra, D., & Mishra, A. (2011). Research trends in management issues of global software

development: Evaluating the past to envision the future. Journal of Global Information

109

110

Technology Management, 14(4), 48-69.

Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and

organizational change. California Management Review, 32(2), 77-97.

Nasser, R. (2005). A method for social scientists to adapt instruments from one culture to

another: The case of the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Social Sciences, 1(4), 232-237.

Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th

ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Neuman, W. L., Plano Clark, V. L., Lane, D., & Roberts, C. (2004). School of Advanced Studies

research and statistics guidebook. (Custom edition.) Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Novick, M. R., & Lewis, C. (1967). Coefficient alpha and the reliability of composite

measurements. Psychometrika, 32, 1-13.

Nydegger, R., & Nydegger, L. (2010). Challenges in managing virtual teams. Journal of

Business & Economics Research, 8(3), 69-82.

Oertig, M., & Buergi, T. (2006). The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams.

Team Performance Management, 12(1/2), 23-30.

Onder, C., & Basim, N. (2008). Examination of developmental models of occupational burnout

using burnout profiles of nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 64(5), 514-523.

O’Toole, J. (1995). Why amoral leadership doesn’t work. In R. Brandt, & T. Kastl (Eds.),

110

111

Business leadership: A Jossey-Bass reader (pp. 279-306). John Wiley & Sons: San

Francisco: CA.

Palacio, R. R., Vizcaíno, A. A., Morán, A. L., & González, V. M. (2011). Tool to facilitate

appropriate interaction in global software development. IET Software, 5(2), 157-171.

Parahoo, K. (1997). Nursing research: Principles, process, issues. London: Macmillan.

Pearlson, K. E., & Saunders, C. S. (2001, May). There’s no place like home: paradoxes. The

Academy of Management Executive, 15(2), 117-128.

Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 104-112.

Philip, A., Afolabi, B., Adeniran, O., Oluwatolani, O., & Ishaya, G. (2010). Towards an efficient

information systems development process and management: A review of challenges and

proposed strategies. Engineering, 2(10), 983-989.

Pons, D. (2008). Project management for new product development. Project Management

Journal, 39(2), 82-97.

Potter, R. E., & Balthazard, P. A. (2002). Understanding human interactions and performance in

the virtual team. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 4(1), 1-23.

Powell, A., Galvin, G., & Piccoli, G. (2006). Antecedents to team member commitment from

near and far: A comparison between collocated and virtual teams. Information

Technology & People, 19(4), 299-322.

Punch, K. F. (2014). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative & Qualitative Approaches

(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Preston-Ortiz, D. (2010). The effects of trust in virtual strategic-alliance performance outcomes

111

112

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3436669)

Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge

(PMBOK® guide) (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA.

Purvanova, R., K., & Bono, J., E. (June, 2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-

face and virtual teams, The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343-357.

Qureshi, S., Liu, M., & Vogel, D. (2006). The effects of electronic collaboration in distributed

project management. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 55-75.

Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2006). Training for virtual teams: An investigation of

current practices and future needs. Human Resources Management, 42(2), 229-247.

Ruggieri, S. (2009). Leadership in virtual teams: A comparison of transformational and

transactional leaders. Social Behavior and Personality, 37(8), 1017-1021.

Ruparelia, N., B. (2010) Software Development Lifecycle Models. ACM SIGSOFT Software

Engineering Notes, 35(3), 8-13.

Ryan, J., C., & Tipu, S. A. A. (October, 2013) Leadership effects on innovation propensity: A

two-factor full range leadership model. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2116-2129.

Sadeghi, A., & Pihie, Z. A. L. (2012). Transformational leadership and its predictive effects on

leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 186-

197.

Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is

promising. Crime Delinquency, 49, 360-388.

112

113

Singh, R. (2011). How can social media data and analysis improve a company's bottom line?.

SiliconIndia, 14(8), 42-43.

Smith, M., A. (2011) Are you a transformational leader?. Nursing management, 42(9), 44-50.

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and

innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132-157.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and anonymity on

group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 89–103.

Spreitzer, G. M. (2003). Leadership development in the virtual workplace. In S. E. Murphy & R.

E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development (pp. 71–86). Mahwah, NJ:

Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Stanton, N. A., Ashleigh, M. J., Roberts, A. D., & Xu, F. (2003). Virtuality in human supervisory

control: Assessing the effects of psychological and social remoteness. Ergonomics

46(12), 1215-1232.

Staples, D., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-

face teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15(4), 389.

Steinfield, C. (2002). Realizing the benefits of virtual teams. Computer, 35(3), 104-106.

Stojkovic, S., & Farkas, M. (2003). Correctional leadership: A cultural perspective. New York:

Thomson Wadsworth.

Tucker, B. A., & Russell, R. F. (2003, Spring). The influence of the transformational leader.

Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 103-111.

113

114

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2005, January). Telework programs: Implementing

commuter benefits as one of the nation’s best workplaces for commuters. Retrieved from

http://www.bestworkplaces.org/empkit/files/section3/telecommute_benefit_brief.pdf

Van Pelt, S. (2009). The Complexities of Leading Virtual Teams: A phenomenological study.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3394316)

Waters, D. B. (2004). Help for team efforts. Darwin Magazine, 43.

Wielke, R., K. (2008). Leadership behaviors of virtual team leaders: A phenomenological study.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3333910)

Whited, J., E. (2007). Identifying required skills for virtual team leaders: A delphi method study.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No.

3324084)

Xirasagar, S., (2008),Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership among

physician executives, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 22(6), 599-613.

Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., & Spangler, W.D. (1998). Transformational leadership:

Individual, dyad, and group levels of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 9(25-54).

Yokell, M., R., (2010). A quantitative correlational study of the relationship between knowledge

management maturity and firm performance. Available from Proquest Dissertations and

Theses. (UMI No. 3463227)

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson

114

115

Prentice Hall.

Zigurs, I., (January, 2003). Leadership in virtual teams: Oxymoron or opportunity?,

Organizational Dynamics, 31(4), 339-351.

115

116

Appendix A: Instrumentation

116

117

117

118

118

119

Perception of Organizational Effectiveness

Please indicate your level of agreement with each statement using the following response options: SD = strongly disagree D = disagree n = neutral A = agree SA = strongly agree 1. I believe that all workers of this project know what has to be done to deliver services to the target population.

SD D N A SA

2. I believe that all workers of this project know why the designed tasks must be done.

SD D N A SA

3. I believe that individuals can develop an effective plan to carry desired tasks within this project.

SD D N A SA

4. As a worker, I have access to the resources needed to execute the plans, mission, and goals of this project?

SD D N A SA

5. I believe that workers are aware of the signs and feedback that reveal to them the effectiveness of their efforts -- and are able to make adjustments as needed toward goal attainment.

SD D N A SA

6. I believe that workers within this project maintain their energy and enthusiasm despite project difficulties or challenges.

SD D N A SA

7. I believe that workers within this project feel recognized for their contributions toward the outcomes of this project.

SD D N A SA

8. I believe that the project achieves its stated mission, goals, and outcomes toward high performance.

SD D N A SA

9. I believe that the number of cases managed by staff is too high for most workers to be effective within this project.

SD D N A SA

10. I believe that the project is planned in such a way as to meet its goals?

SD D N A SA

11. I believe that the project is implemented in the ways specified by the contract.

SD D N A SA

119

120

12. I believe that the project is effectively reaching the intended target population.

SD D N A SA

13. I believe that the project is effective in meeting its goals.

SD D N A SA

14. I believe that the current approach of the project will lead to successful outcome performance.

SD D N A SA

Please answer the following demographic and background questions by placing a check mark on the appropriate line: 1. Gender: ___Male ___Female 2. Ethnicity ___Caucasian ___African American ___Hispanic ___Other/mixed races 3. Educational attainment ___High school diploma ___Associate’s degree ___Bachelor’s degree ___Master’s degree ___Doctorate 4. Age: ______ 5. How long have you been employed with this project? ______ years. 6. How long have you worked within the field of offender reentry? ______years.

Note. Adapted from “A quantitative study on the relationship between transformational leadership, organizational commitment, and perception of effectiveness” by L. T. Geter 2010 (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertations and Theses. (UMI No. 3452327)

120

121

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Participants 18 Years of Age and Older

Dear Participant,

My name is Michael A Morales and I am a student at the University of Phoenix working on a Doctor of Management degree. I am conducting a research study entitled DETERMINING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP STYLES IN SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT VIRTUAL TEAMS, A QUANTITATIVE CORRELATIVE STUDY.

The purpose of the research study is to research the effectiveness of different leadership styles on virtual team performance.Your participation will involve completing a brief survey which describes your views on the effectiveness of your virtual team leader and the leadership style he/she used. The survey will take one-half hour to complete.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.

In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you.

Although there may be no direct benefit to you, a possible benefit of your participation is the satisfaction derived from participation in research that develops a deeper understanding of the relationship between specific leadership styles and employee motivation and satisfaction.

If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at 786-436-1350 or email at moralmi@email.phoenix.edu.

As a participant in this study, you should understand the following: 1. You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without

consequences. 2. Your identity will be kept confidential. 3. Data will be secured. 4. The research results will be used for publication.

By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept confidential. Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described. Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________ Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date ____________

121

122

Appendix C: Permission To Use Instrument

122