| Summary: | The present study attempts to extend leader-member exchange theory to the team-level by including team social cohesion and two team-level exchange relationship constructs (i.e., team-level leader-member exchange [LMX] and team-member exchange [TMX]) simultaneously, and by examining antecedents and outcomes associated with these variables. The research model includes transformational leadership and team-members' individualism-collectivism as antecedents of the team relational environment and both team performance and team viability as effectiveness measures. Survey data were collected for a field sample of 89 Airborne Special Operations (ASO) teams in the Korean Army. Each team's effectiveness was rated by three different sources: team members (N=823, 7~11 people per team; M=9.4), regional unit (RU) peers (31~42 peers for each team; M=37.2), and RU commanders (N=17). The hypothesized model and several alternative models were tested three times, using team effectiveness measures from each of the three sources in a separate model. Overall, results from path analyses conducted using EQS were consistent with the hypotheses. Specifically, both team-level LMX and TMX were positively affected by transformational leadership and team members' collectivism. TMX showed a stronger positive association with team social cohesion than did team-level LMX. Team performance was positively affected by TMX, team social cohesion, and transformational leadership in the model that employed team members' ratings as team effectiveness measures. However, when the ratings from RU peers were used as team outcome measures, the path from team social cohesion to team performance remained significant, but the other two paths became non-significant. None of the three variables significantly predicted team performance as rated by RU commanders. When viewed in terms of team viability, team social cohesion showed a significant association with team viability across all three models. Although TMX predicted team viability when team members' ratings were used in the model, it did not predict team viability when the ratings were from either RU peers or RU commanders. Finally, transformational leadership showed a significant positive and negative relationship with the number of collectivists and individualists within a team, respectively, across all three models. The limitations of the present study and recommendations for future research are presented.
|
|---|
