problem solving response competition and the influence of drive

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning

Competition has often been implicated as a means to improve effort-based learning and attention. Two experiments examined the effects of competition on effort and memory. In Experiment 1, participants completed a physical effort task in which they were rewarded for winning an overall percentage, or for winning a competition they believed was against another player. In Experiment 2, participants completed a memory task in which they were rewarded for remembering an overall percentage of shapes, or more shapes than a “competitor.” We found that, in the physical effort task, participants demonstrated faster reaction times (RTs)—a previous indicator of increased attention—in the competitive environment. Moreover, individual differences predicted the salience of competition’s effect. Furthermore, male participants showed faster RTs and greater sustained effort as a result of a competitive environment, suggesting that males may be more affected by competition in physical effort tasks. However, in Experiment 2, participants remembered fewer shapes when competing, and later recalled less of these shapes during a post-test, suggesting that competition was harmful in our memory task. The different results from these two experiments suggest that competition can improve attention in a physical effort task, yet caution the use of competition in memory tasks.

Introduction

Social motivation has been defined as a drive for a particular goal based on a social influence ( Hogg and Abrams, 1990 ). Although research has examined correlative relationships between competition and learning ( Dweck and Leggett, 1988 ; Zimmerman, 1989 ; Oldfather and Dahl, 1994 ; Wentzel, 1999 ), few studies have examined how the presence of a competitor directly influences motivation, effort, and memory. In Burguillo (2010) found that implementing competition-based games in a classroom improved course performance. One might therefore assume that competition may directly improve some aspect of the memory process; yet, it is unclear whether competition directly affects attention, effort, or memory.

Recent research has shown that the presence of a competitor can increase physical effort over both short ( Le Bouc and Pessiglione, 2013 ) and long durations ( Kilduff, 2014 ). Competitiveness has also been shown to increase physical motivation, such as motivation to practice a sport ( Frederick-Recascino and Schuster-Smith, 2003 ). A better understanding of how competition improves performance may help shed light on how to improve cognitive performance (e.g., memory in the classroom). For example, if the presence of a competitor affected attention, we may expect to see an effect at encoding, since attention is one of many necessary components for accurate encoding ( Craik et al., 1996 ; Anderson et al., 2000 ; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2000 ). However, if the presence of a competitor is affecting memory retention, we may expect a difference regarding long-term memory, but not short-term memory. Furthermore, competition could affect components of memory without affecting attention at all.

There may also be individual differences in the magnitude and direction of competition’s effect on performance. Individual differences exist in a variety of domains, especially those involving motivation ( Duckworth et al., 2007 ; Maddi et al., 2012 ). For example, previous research has found that individual differences in normative goals—i.e., wanting to perform better than others ( Grant and Dweck, 2003 )—have been shown to predict performance on ostensibly difficult tasks ( Swanson and Tricomi, 2014 ), suggesting that individual differences may be at play when examining competition’s effect on effort, attention, and memory. Also, competition may affect elements of effort and elements of memory in different ways. For example, if competition does indeed have an effect on attention, competition could have a varying effect depending on attentional load. In accordance with the Yerkes and Dodson (1908) law, one might expect that competition may improve performance in situations requiring a low attention load, but not in learning environments requiring high attentional load.

Additionally, research has yet to examine the potential social stigma associated with competition, or in other words, whether being competitive is viewed as a negative personality trait. Moreover, previous research regarding illusory superiority has found that individuals tend to rate themselves as having significantly more positive personality traits than the rest of the population, including traits such as trustworthiness, honesty, good-humor, and patience ( Hoorens, 1995 ). Furthermore, previous research has found that the majority of individuals rate themselves as significantly less likely to act selfishly than the rest of the general population ( Pronin et al., 2002 ), as well as drive better ( Horswill et al., 2004 ) than the rest of the general population. Since individuals tend to have unrealistically positive reflections of themselves, participants may tend to rate themselves as having less competitive behaviors—if competitive behavior is viewed as a socially negative trait—in order to continue to view themselves in a positively-skewed light.

Experiment 1 examined the effect of social motivation on a physical effort task. Experiment 2 examined the effect that the presence of a competitor can have on working memory and long-term memory. We hoped to gain insight regarding competition’s effect on effort, attention, and memory, as well as individual differences in competitive performance and the likely possibility of a social desirability bias regarding competitive habits.

Experiment 1

Experiment 1 examined whether competition affects physical effort. Specifically, we wondered if competition would affect sustained effort on an isolated, simple physical task, or if competition affects some other mechanism necessary for successful performance regarding physical effort, such as attentional control. Le Bouc and Pessiglione (2013) found that, when participants believed they were competing, they increased physical effort, suggesting that social factors often increase motivation. However, research has yet to parse the mechanisms at play in social motivation and physical effort. For example, does competition increase effort at the attentional level, or does the presence of a competitor increase sustained effort over time? Previous research has suggested that reaction times (RTs) are indicative of an individual’s level of selective attention ( Eason et al., 1969 ; Stuss et al., 1989 ; Prinzmetal et al., 2005 ), while sustained press rates have been regularly implicated as a means for measuring sustained effort over time ( Maatsch et al., 1954 ; Treadway et al., 2009 ). We also wanted to examine the possibility of individual differences in physical effort in the presence of a competitor, and the possibility of gender differences in the saliency of social motivation.

Participants

One hundred and twenty-nine undergraduates from Rutgers University’s Newark campus participated in the study, which was approved by the Rutgers IRB. Participants received course credit for their participation, and were told upon arriving they would be eligible to earn $1–3 in bonus money in addition to course credit. Participants entered the lab and were introduced to a fellow “participant” they would later be interacting with—a same or opposite sex confederate. After obtaining written informed consent from the participant, the experimenter brought the confederate into a testing room and waited for about 5 min, the expected time for the confederate to complete the practice session of the task. Participants then completed a practice version of the task, the actual task, and a battery of surveys, including demographic information. After completing the surveys, participants were probed about whether or not they believed they were actually competing against another individual and if they believed the confederate was a real participant. Then, participants were debriefed about the confederate and real purpose of the task. Seven participants were removed for not believing the manipulation, and two participants were removed for failing to complete the task in its entirety. Analyses were thus performed on the remaining 120 participants.

Effort Bar Task

Participants completed an effort bar task in the form of a computerized carnival water gun game. Participants saw a fixation cross with a 3–7 s jitter, then were required to press the “x” key to move the effort bar (in this case, in the form of a “water tube”). If participants pressed the “x” key before the water tube appeared, the jitter reset. Participants were required to press between a randomly generated requirement of 5 and 30 times to fill the effort bar in order to win the trial. Participants had to press at an average rate of 150 ms to fill the tube with water in time to win the round, with an extra 350 ms to account for the expected first press time. This time amount was decided due to the results of a pilot study that found that participants had an average first press of 350 ms and press rate (excluding the first press) of one press per 150 ms. Titrating the task at this rate led to the expectation that participants would win an average of 50% of trials. We analyzed participants’ first press RTs as a measure of their attention to the task ( Eason et al., 1969 ; Stuss et al., 1989 ; Prinzmetal et al., 2005 ), as well as their sustained press rate over the span of the task, which provided us a measure of sustained effort ( Maatsch et al., 1954 ; Treadway et al., 2009 ).

“Self” condition

In the “self” condition, participants were told they were playing against the clock, and that if they could win 2/3 of the games (trials) played in this round, they would be granted $1 in addition to their course credit. There were 100 trials per condition (200 trials total). Participants were given immediate feedback after each trial as to whether they won, and were immediately told at the end of each self and each competition condition if they won the bonus money. Conditions were counterbalanced across participants to prevent order effects.

“Competition” condition

In the competition condition, participants were told they were playing against the other “participant” they met earlier (again, a confederate), and would be granted an additional $1 if they could beat their competitor in more of the games. At the end of each game, they were told whether they or the other player won the game, and were told who won the bonus at the end of each self and each competition condition. If participants won 2/3 of the games in a particular condition, they were granted the bonus. Each participant completed both conditions, and conditions were counterbalanced across participants to account for possible order effects. Task depiction is illustrated in Figure ​ Figure1 1 .

Experiment 1 task depiction. Participants saw a preparation screen (Slide 1) for 2 s, then a fixation jittered for 1.5–3 s (Slide 2). Participants pressed the x key repeatedly when they saw the effort bar appear; time was varied by the number of required presses (Slide 3). Participants were told if they filled the effort bar in time (Slide 4) and were given feedback regarding their performance (Slide 5).

We administered several surveys to investigate potential individual differences and their relationship to task performance.

Hypercompetitive Attitude Scale (HAS)

The HAS examines individual differences in general hypercompetitive attitude ( Ryckman et al., 1990 ). The HAS asks participants to reflect on habits and traits that may be associated with a competitive personality (e.g., “I can’t stand to lose an argument.”).

Personal Development Competitive Attitude Scale (PDCAS)

The PDCAS examines if individuals regard competition as a means of improving personal development ( Ryckman et al., 1996 ) The PDCAS reflects on preference for situations in which competition may improve their performance (e.g., “I enjoy competition because it gives me a chance to discover my abilities.”).

Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

We included the SDS ( Crowne and Marlowe, 1960 ) to measure possible bias in responding, whether it be because participants have unrealistic representations of their own traits, or because of a desire to please the experimenter. This questionnaire examines the extent to which a subject may positively skew their survey responses to represent themselves in a positive manner, and requires a “true or false” response to items such as “I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.” The SDS has been previously used to detect the tendency of participants to have unrealistically positive representations of their own traits ( Zerbe and Paulhus, 1987 ; Paulhus, 1991 ; DiMenichi and Richmond, 2015 ). Because Ryckman et al. (1990) found that HAS was also correlated with high aggression, we were unsure whether participants would be likely to admit the extent of their competitive natures. Furthermore, research has yet to examine whether or not individuals view competition as a negative personality trait, and a correlation with the HAS and SDS would suggest this.

Main analyses

A within-subjects t -test examined differences between the first-press RTs in the self condition and the first-press RTs in competition condition. A within-subjects t -test also examined differences between the sustained press-rates in the self condition and the sustained press-rates in the competition condition.

Individual differences analyses

Pearson correlations examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS), first-press RTs, and sustained press-rates from the competition condition and the self condition. Pearson correlations also examined relationships between survey scores and scores on the SDS in order to examine possible biases in participants’ responding, as well as if competitive habits are viewed as a socially-negative trait. We used a Bonferroni corrected significance threshold of p = 0.017 (0.05/3 scales) and interpreted correlations with p -values between 0.018 and 0.05 with caution.

Gender differences analyses

Between-subjects t -tests examined gender differences in performance and on the survey measures (HAS, PDCAS, and SDS) used in our experiment. Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) also examined the effects of the factors gender and confederate gender on competitive first-press RT (first-press RT in the competition condition minus the first-press RT in the self condition) and competitive press rate (press rate in the competition condition minus the press rate in the self condition). Within-subject t -tests for each group individually also examined differences in performance across conditions (30 participants per group).

Results and Discussion

A paired-samples t -test revealed that participants’ first presses—i.e., immediate RTs on the task—were significantly faster in the competition condition ( M = 339.43 ms, SD = 72.96) than in the self condition [ M = 352.89, SD = 86.84; t (119) = –2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen’s d = 0.24], suggesting that participants demonstrated greater attentional focus on the task when they believed they were competing against another participant (Figure ​ (Figure2). 2 ). There were no other significant findings regarding press rate, score, and condition, suggesting that competition affected attentional focus on the task, but not sustained physical effort over time.

Results from Experiment 1. Participants’ first press reaction times (RTs) were significantly faster in the competition condition than the self condition. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means. *Significant at p < 0 .05.

Scores on the SDS were significantly negatively correlated with scores on the HAS ( r = –0.367, p < 0.001), suggesting that overt competition may be implicitly viewed as a negative personal quality by most individuals. There was no significant relationship between scores on the SDS and scores on the PDCAS, suggesting that the PDCAS may be immune to participants’ tendencies to paint themselves in a positively-skewed manner. Scores on the PDCAS were significantly correlated with faster RTs of the first press in competition condition ( r = –0.239, p = 0.008), suggesting that individuals who view competition as a means for personal development may have greater attentional focus in the presence of a competitor. However, there was no significant relationship between scores on the PDCAS and first press RT in the self condition, which is consistent with the idea that competitive personality traits should not affect performance in an environment with no competition.

Men also scored significantly higher on the PDCAS ( M = 51.59, SD = 9.65) than women [ M = 46.62, SD = 11.68; t (118) = 2.53, p = 0.012, Cohen’s d = 0.46], suggesting that men may view competition as a greater motivation for improving skills pertaining to personal development. Additionally, male participants demonstrated significantly faster first press RTs in the competition condition than female participants’ first press RTs in the competition condition [male M = 323.23, SD = 71.44; female M = 335.09, SD = 71.53; t (118) = –2.44, p = 0.016, Cohen’s d = 0.17] Furthermore, male participants also had faster sustained press rates in the competition condition ( M = 128.36, SD = 16.01) when compared to females participants’ press rates in the competition condition [ M = 138.26, SD = 11.98; t (118) = –3.84, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.70]. However, there were no significant gender differences involving first press RT in the self condition or press rate in the self condition. Furthermore, when examining male participants’ sustained press rate performance, there was no significant difference between press rate in the competition and self conditions. See Figure ​ Figure3 3 for gender difference results across conditions. A two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 0.48, p = 0.695] or interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 0.63, p = 0.825 Cohen’s d = 0.08] on competitive first-press RTs. Also, a two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 0.75, p = 0.528] or interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.25, p = 0.209, Cohen’s d = 0.10] on competitive press rate. Overall, these findings suggest that men were significantly more socially motivated in the presence of another competitor, at least in terms of attention in a physical effort task.

Gender differences from Experiment 1. Males had significantly faster first press reaction times and significantly faster press rates in the competition condition compared to female’s first press reaction times and press rates in the competition condition. However, there was no significant gender difference in the self condition. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

Our findings from Experiment 1 suggest that competition had an effect on participants’ attention to our task. We did not find a significant relationship between competition and sustained physical effort in our task, suggesting that competition may have a more cloudy relationship with physical effort than our task was able to provide. Furthermore, our results suggest that there are predictable individual differences in competition’s influence on attention, although reflection on these individual differences may be vulnerable to a bias of individuals to paint themselves in an overly positive light, whether implicitly or explicitly (e.g., due to task-demand characteristics or the presence of an experimenter). Also, our findings show that men’s attention on a physical effort task may be more influenced by the presence of a competitor than women’s.

Experiment 2

Because Experiment 1 found that competition increased attention, Experiment 2 examined whether the presence of a competitor enhanced working memory as well as memory retention, mechanisms that both rely heavily on attention. Specifically, we examined whether competition would inspire greater performance on a memory task and, if so, what mechanisms are responsible.

One hundred and twenty-four undergraduates from Rutgers University’s Newark campus participated in the study, which was approved by the Rutgers IRB. Participants received course credit for their participation, and were told upon arriving they would be eligible to earn $1–3 in bonus money in addition to course credit. Experiment 2 followed the same laboratory format as Experiment 1: upon entering the lab, participants were introduced to another “participant” they would later be interacting with—a same or opposite sex confederate. After obtaining written informed consent from the participant, the experimenter brought the confederate into a testing room and waited for about 5 min, the expected time for the confederate to complete the practice session of the task. Participants then completed a practice version of the task, the actual task, a surprise recall task, and a battery of surveys, including demographic information. After completing the surveys, participants were probed for task believability and debriefed about the confederate and real purpose of the task. Four participants were removed from the sample for not believing that the confederate was a participant. Analyses were performed on the remaining 120 participants (60 females).

Working Memory Task

Our working memory task was adapted from ( Redick et al., 2012 ). Participants decided if a matrix was symmetrical or not, and then were presented with a line drawing of an abnormal shape, along with a number (1 through 3). See Figure ​ Figure4 4 for task depiction. They were asked to memorize the association between the shape and the number. Novel shapes were taken from Endo et al.’s (2001) Novel Shape database. After three different matrices and shapes were shown, participants were shown a recall screen with the shapes from the trial, and asked to recall the numbers associated with the shapes they were just shown. Each condition contained 12 rounds with 18 novel shapes randomly assigned to each condition, and each round was shown twice because of a later recall task. Each participant completed both conditions, and shapes in the “self” condition were not repeated in the “competition” condition (and vice versa ). Conditions were counterbalanced across participants to prevent order effects, and shapes in each condition were counterbalanced across participants, in case shapes in one condition were somehow more difficult than shapes in another condition.

Experiment 2 task depiction. (A) Participants were shown a matrix for 2 s (Slide 1) and asked to decide if the shape was symmetrical (Slide 2). Participants were then shown a novel shape paired with a number (1, 2, or 3) for 2 s, and were asked to memorize this association (Slide 3). After three rounds (of Slides 1–3), participants were asked to recall the numbers associated with the shapes. (B) Subjects were given immediate feedback for 6 s regarding their performance on the previous round. In the self condition (left), subjects were informed about how many shapes they recalled correctly. After a 2 s delay, they also saw the number of symmetry errors they made on this trial, and the total percentage of symmetry problems answered correctly throughout the condition (top right corner—subjects were required to answer at least 85% of symmetry problems correctly in order to receive the monetary bonus). In the competition condition (right), subjects were also given feedback about the number of shapes their “opponent” remembered correctly—a randomly generated number from 0 to 3. After a 2 s delay, they were also given feedback about their symmetry performance.

In the self condition, participants were given feedback about their performance directly after the recall screen: they were told how many shapes they recalled correctly out of three, as well as how many symmetry problems they answered correctly. They were also given the running total percentage of correct symmetry problems for the entire condition. Participants viewed feedback for 6 s after each round, and were told that if they could remember a total average of 2/3 shapes across all rounds for this condition, they would be given a $1 bonus in addition to their course credit. They were also told that in order to receive the bonus, they were required to complete the task with a symmetry matrix accuracy of at least 85%. Inclusion of the symmetry task also allowed us to examine if effort on the task varied across conditions, since this section of the task did not have a memory component.

In the competition condition, after each recall screen, participants were given feedback about how many shapes they correctly recalled out of three, as well as feedback about their “competitor’s” performance. Competitor performance was randomly generated out of 3, and averaged out to be 2/3 across the entire condition, making the task goal equivalent across both the self and competition conditions. After a 2 s delay, participants were also given feedback about symmetry matrices errors for the round. This delay was issued in order to present the same amount of information across conditions, therefore making cognitive load on working memory more equal across conditions. Total recall viewing time was 6 s after each round. Participants were told if they could recall more associations than the other participant on the most rounds—as well have a symmetry matrix accuracy of at least 85%—they would get a $1 bonus at the end of the condition. Condition feedback is depicted in Figure ​ Figure1B 1B .

Recall task

In a surprise recall task that followed the working memory task, participants were again asked to recall each number associated with each shape. Shape order was randomized to prevent order effects.

A within-subjects t -test examined differences between the number of shapes remembered in the self condition and the number of shapes remembered in competition condition of the working memory task. A within-subjects t -test also examined whether there were differences in subsequent memory between the two conditions, i.e., whether there were differences between the number of shapes originally learned in the self condition and the number of shapes originally learned in the competition condition that were correctly recalled on the surprise recall posttest. To compare any differences in immediate attention across conditions, a within-subjects t -test examined RT to the first symmetry problem between the two conditions. We also subtracted each participant’s total number of shapes remembered during the self condition of the working memory task from their total number of shapes remembered during the competition condition of the working memory task, and deemed this score each participant’s “competitive performance score.” A positive number would indicate better performance on the competition condition of our task. We also repeated the process for post-test scores. A linear regression examined if competitive performance scores predicted competitive recall scores, in order to examine if recall scores on the post-test were the result of learning during the working memory task. If there was no significant relationship between competitive performance scores and competitive recall scores, we would assume that competition increased effort on our task, but not immediate long-term memory. Self scores were subtracted from competition scores in order to account for general memory ability on the task.

Pearson correlations (Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons, α = 0.017) examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS) and working memory scores from the competition condition and self condition, as well as recall scores. Pearson correlations also examined relationships between survey scores and scores on the SDS in order to examine possible biases in participants’ responding, as well as if competitive habits are viewed as a socially-negative trait. A partial Pearson correlation also examined relationships between trait competitive tendencies and performance while controlling for scores on the SDS.

Between-subjects t -tests examined gender differences in performance, recall, and on the survey measures (HAS, PDCAS, and SDS) used in our experiment. Two-way ANOVAs also examined the effect of the factors gender and confederate gender on competitive performance and competitive recall scores. Furthermore, within-subject t -tests for each group individually examined differences in performance across conditions (30 participants per group). Partial Pearson correlations controlling for SDS also examined the relationship between trait competitive tendencies (HAS and PDCAS) and working memory scores from the competition condition, self condition, and recall conditions in order to examine if the presence of a same- or opposite-sex confederate is salient enough to override state tendencies.

A paired-samples t -test revealed that participants performed significantly better in the self condition ( M = 28.78, SD = 6.87) than the competition condition [ M = 26.72, SD = 6.24; t (119) = 3.85, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.31] during the working memory task. There was no significant difference between symmetry error rates across conditions, as well as no significant difference in RT to the first symmetry problem across conditions, suggesting that competition did not affect participants’ expended effort on the task, but specifically affected working memory performance. Furthermore, a paired-samples t -test revealed that participants later recalled more shapes on the post-test learned in the self condition ( M = 10.61, SD = 4.40) than in the competition condition [ M = 8.76, SD = 3.34; t (119) = 4.06, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.37]. A linear regression revealed that competitive performance scores significantly predicted competitive recall scores [β = 0.25, t (119) = 3.34, p = 0.005], and competitive performance scores also explained a significant proportion of variance in competitive recall post-test scores [ R 2 = 0.09, F (1,118) = 11.15, p = 0.001], suggesting that recall scores on the post-test were the result of learning during the working memory task. If there was not a significant relationship between competitive performance scores and competitive recall scores, we would assume that competition increased effort on our task, but not immediate long-term memory.

A Pearson correlation on our survey data revealed a marginally significantly positive association between scores on the PDCAS and performance in the competition condition ( r = 0.17, p = 0.061), but not in the self condition. Because scores on the SDS were again relatively high in our sample—participants answered an average of 55.25% of questions in a “socially desirable” manner—we conducted a partial correlation that revealed that, when controlling for SDS, PDCAS scores were marginally significantly associated with performance during the competition condition ( r = 0.18, p = 0.048). However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, this finding was no longer significant.

As predicted, SDS scores were again significantly negatively correlated with scores on the HAS ( r = –0.367, p < 0.001), replicating our findings from Experiment 1 and again suggesting that our participants’ self-reflections of their own competitive habits may be skewed. Since HAS contains questions pertaining to direct competitive tendencies, overt competitiveness may be considered a negative personality trait by most individuals. Furthermore, although HAS scores were significantly associated with PDCAS scores ( r = 0.304, p < 0.001), PDCAS scores were not significantly associated with SDS scores, again suggesting that competition as a means for personal development may be viewed more positively than overt competitive behavior and beliefs.

Although the men in our sample again scored significantly higher on the PDCAS ( M = 56.03, SD = 13.26) than women [ M = 49.27, SD = 14.76; t (118) = 2.87, p = 0.005, Cohen’s d = 0.48], there were no significant differences regarding gender and task performance or recall. We also examined the results with respect to the gender of the confederates. A two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender did not reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 1.48, p = 0.229] or an interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.09, p = 0.735, Cohen’s d = 0.36] on competitive performance scores, nor did a two-way ANOVA with the factors participant gender and confederate gender reveal a significant main effect of confederate gender [ F (3) = 2.28, p = 0.088] or an interaction of gender by confederate gender [ F (42) = 1.73, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.45] on competitive recall scores. Furthermore, pair-wise t -tests revealed that neither men nor women who competed against male confederates showed any significant difference in self vs. competitive performance. Yet, male participants who competed against female confederates performed significantly worse [ t (29) = 3.54, p = 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.65] and female participants who competed against female confederates performed marginally significantly worse [females: t (29) = 1.91, p = 0.066, Cohen’s d = 0.35] while they believed they were competing than when they were not competing. Furthermore, both male and females participants who competed against female confederates later recalled significantly fewer shapes learned in the competition condition [males: t (29) = 3.38, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = 0.62; females: t (29) = 3.00, p = 0.006, Cohen’s d = 0.55]. All groups contained equal n ’s of 30 participants in each group. Although one could suggest that a significant difference among participants who believed they were competing against females may have resulted because these participants were exerting less effort against female competitors, there were no significant group differences regarding symmetry errors, suggesting that effort on the task was equal across groups, while memory on the task was hindered in those participants who faced female competitors. Details regarding group differences are depicted in Figure ​ Figure5 5 .

Results of Experiment 2. (A) Participants remembered significantly more shapes during the task in the “self” condition than the “competition” condition. (B) Participants later recalled more shapes learned in the “self” condition than the “competition” condition. (C) “Competitive performance scores” (score on “self” condition subtracted from score on “competition” condition) significantly predicted “competitive recall scores” (shapes from the “self” condition successfully recalled on the post-test subtracted from shapes from the “competition” condition successfully recalled), suggesting that our working memory task produced significant immediate long-term learning. In this graph, a positive score signifies more competitive score. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

When controlling for social desirability bias, scores on the PDCAS were significantly positively correlated with performance in the competition condition (but not the self condition) for female participants who believed they were competing against female confederates ( r = 0.49, p = 0.009). This suggests that the more these participants viewed competition as a way to improve their skills, the better they performed in a competitive environment. However, given the small sample of female participants who competed against female confederates ( n = 30), this finding may be very speculative. Furthermore, although one would then expect the PDCAS to be correlated with the number of shapes recalled from the competition condition, this finding was not significant. However, competitive performance scores (score during self condition subtracted from the score during the competition condition) did not predict competitive recall scores for females who believed they were competing against other females, suggesting that, although competition may increase performance for individuals who prefer competition as a means of improving performance, competitive performance does not very often translate to an increase in immediate long-term memory.

Overall, our results suggest that competition hindered working memory performance and immediate long-term memory for most groups in our task. The finding that competition may hinder memory is surprising; one explanation for this finding could be that the presence of a competitor could invoke high anxiety among participants, and high levels of anxiety have been shown to decrease working ( Darke, 1988 ; Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ) and long-term memory ( Rosenfeld, 1978 ; Cassady, 2004 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ). Specifically, research has found that adolescents raised in high normative goal environments report the highest rates of competitive anxiety ( White, 1998 ), which may lead to decrements in performance.

Perhaps even more unanticipated is that the finding that the presence of a female competitor, but not a male, was most likely to hinder performance on our memory task. An alternative explanation for this finding would be that participants exerted less effort on the task because of the presence of a female competitor. However, because there was no significant difference involving gender, competition condition, and symmetry errors, these results suggest that the presence of a female competitor is more likely to be hindering processes involved in working memory—and subsequently, the processes necessary for encoding, as evident by the results of our recall task. Furthermore, we found significant differences between conditions for participants who believed they were competing against female confederates, but there was no significant interaction of gender by confederate gender. This may suggest that all participants may have reduced performance in the competition condition in a similar fashion (see Figure ​ Figure6), 6 ), and therefore not produced an interaction of gender by confederate gender.

Gender differences in Experiment 2. Male and female participants performed worse in and recalled fewer shapes at post-test when they believed they were competing against female competitors. There were no significant differences for participants who believed they were competing again male competitors. Error bars reflect standard errors of the means.

Moreover, disparities in subjective reward could affect the memory processes required for learning, such as attention: succeeding in a competitive learning environment could feel subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist learning environment, and therefore distract participants’ attention, thereby disrupting working and long-term memory.

General Discussion

Competition, attention, and memory.

Our results support the notion that a competitive environment can affect memory and effort. In Experiment 1, we examined the effect of competition on attention and effort; we found that the presence of a competitor increased attention on a physical effort task. However, we did not find that competition increased sustained effort on our task—just as competition did not affect the effort portion of Experiment 2 (symmetry matrices). This result could have occurred for a number of reasons: first, since RTs tend to be viewed as an implicit marker of motivation ( Glaser and Knowles, 2008 ), perhaps competition affects effort on an implicit, rather than explicit, level, especially since our survey results suggest that participants tend to view overt competitive behavior as a negative trait. Second, perhaps competition is only salient enough to increase immediate attention in a laboratory setting, and not sustained physical effort on a task over time. More likely, however, competition may only affect performance on a physical effort task in an environment where competitors compete side-by-side, which did not occur in our task. Furthermore, Kilduff (2014) has found that competition tends to increase physical effort on a gross physical effort task (i.e., running a race). Nonetheless, the finding that competition may increase attention has crucial real-world applications for education and the workplace.

In Experiment 2, we examined the effects of the presence of a competitor on memory. Participants in our sample performed best on our working memory task in a non-competitive environment, and also learned more in a non-competitive environment, as demonstrated by their performance on a later recall test. These results could have occurred for a number of reasons. First, competition could be viewed as an anxiety-provoking threat for most participants: previous research has suggested that high levels of anxiety could have a negative effect on both working memory ability ( Darke, 1988 ; Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ; Owens et al., 2012 ) and on learning ( Rosenfeld, 1978 ; Cassady, 2004 ; Miller and Bichsel, 2004 ; Einsel and Turk, 2011 ). We would expect that, if participants viewed their competitor as a threat, this would indeed hinder performance, as was seen in our results. These findings were even stronger in our results regarding recall, suggesting that for most individuals, competition actually hinders memory. Furthermore, our sample consisted of students already at the undergraduate level of education, who may already be acclimated to cooperating with other students in academic settings (as opposed to competing). Since our sample consisted of U.S. undergraduate students—as opposed to students from a country such as Japan, in which competitive learning environments are common ( Heine et al., 2001 )—perhaps our participants were not adjusted to learning in a competitive environment. Competitive learning environments may have led to improvements in countries which have taught this way from an early age, suggesting that a competitive learning environment may be too novel for someone already at a higher level of education ( Sanders, 1987 ; Smith, 1992 ).

Although competition improved initial RT in Experiment 1, the presence of a competitor hindered both working memory and immediate long-term memory in Experiment 2. Since attention is likely to increase both working memory ( Awh et al., 2006 ; Berryhill et al., 2011 ) and learning ( Nissen and Bullemer, 1987 ; Cohen et al., 1990 ; Gottlieb, 2012 ), why did this finding occur? It is possible that the difficulty of the task was responsible for this paradox: Experiment 1 featured a simple, button press task that required minimal effort. However, the multi-faceted task from Experiment 2 required more effort to succeed, and since greater emotional arousal may hinder performance and motivation on a very difficult task ( Yerkes and Dodson, 1908 ; Watters et al., 1997 ; Diamond et al., 2007 ), it may be that the presence of a competitor was anxiety-provoking enough to hinder working memory performance and immediate long-term memory. In fact, previous research has found that RT tends to be faster after an increase in arousal, whereas executive tasks such as those necessary for successful working memory tend to benefit from a decrease in arousal ( Luft et al., 2009 ). Furthermore, since competitive performance scores significantly predicted competitive recall scores, it may be that anxiety affected memory at the encoding phase—as opposed to affecting retention or retrieval.

An alternative explanation lies in the reward literature, as previous research has found that receiving rewards for a task can sometimes hinder performance, learning, and memory ( Spence, 1970 ; McGraw and McCullers, 1974 ; Mobbs et al., 2009 ; Chib et al., 2012 ). Perhaps succeeding in a competitive learning environment was subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist setting, despite objective rewards remaining the same across conditions. If succeeding in a competitive learning environment is subjectively more rewarding than succeeding in an individualist setting, competition may be more likely to distract participants—similarly to “choking under pressure” ( Baumeister, 1984 ; Beilock and Carr, 2001 , 2005 ; Ramirez et al., 2013 ). This explanation may be why competition negatively affecting working memory and immediate long-term memory on our task. There also may individual differences in preferences for competitive learning environments. In future research, it would be valuable to discern participants’ preference for the competition condition, as this information may provide insight as to the possible distractibility of competition and memory.

Individual and Gender Differences

In Experiment 1, we found that the PDCAS predicted how competitive an individual was at an effort bar task. In Experiment 2, the PDCAS predicted how competitive an individual was in a memory task, although this finding did not remain significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. Competitiveness in a learning setting is likely to be contingent on more factors than can be grasped from one survey measure. Furthermore, we found that men scored significantly higher on the PDCAS, suggesting that men may value competition as a means for improving personal development more than women. Men also exhibited a more competitive performance in our physical effort task in Experiment 1, in line with recent research that suggests men tend to both prefer and perform better in competitive physical environments more so than women ( Gneezy et al., 2009 ; Niederle and Vesterlund, 2011 ). However, men did not outperform women in our repeated memory task in Experiment 2. Competition may affect performance on memory tasks differently than competition traditionally affects effort and attention. Furthermore, since previous studies [such as Gneezy et al. (2009) ] have typically utilized effort tasks to compare preference for competitive environments, future research studies may want to further examine gender differences in preference for competition in memory tasks specifically, since these are typically utilized in educational settings.

We also found high rates of social desirability in our sample, which was negatively correlated with the HAS—but not the PDCAS—suggesting that the PDCAS may be a superior survey measure when tapping an individual’s true trait competitive habits and preferences. Furthermore, because the HAS contains blatant questions regarding competition, its negative correlation with social desirability may suggest that competition may be viewed as a negative personality trait by most individuals.

In Experiment 2, we found significant differences in performance on a memory task when a participant believed they were competing against a female participant. However, this result was not the case in Experiment 1 in a physical effort task. Although some research has found that females tend to excel at tasks involving episodic memory ( Herlitz et al., 1997 ; Davis, 1999 ) and object identification memory tasks ( Voyer et al., 2007 ), which were strong skills necessary to succeed at the type of task used in Experiment 2, whether this gender advantage was known by our participants remains unknown. Research suggests that increased attention drawn to one’s own performance can result in performance decrements or “choking under pressure” ( Baumeister, 1984 ; Beilock and Carr, 2001 , 2005 ; Ramirez et al., 2013 ), so the presence of a female competitor may increase pressure in a learning environment if participants have had previous experience with an object identification memory tasks and a female rivals, such as in a classroom learning setting. Yet, it is unclear whether the performance differences we found among participants who believed they were competing against female competitors were due to increased pressure due to the presence of a female competitor, or the opposite view: that females did not appear to be strong opponents in a learning setting, so they did not cause their competitors to devote more attentional resources to the task. However, although we found significant differences between conditions for participants who believed they were competing against female confederates, there was no significant interaction of gender by confederate gender, suggesting that all participants may have reduced performance in the competition condition.

Limitations

It may be difficult to generalize our experiment to competition and memory in a real-world sense. Our task in Experiment 1 examined how social motivation’s effect on a simple physical effort task, but competition may affect gross physical effort (e.g., running, team sports, etc.) on a more complex level. Additionally, our task from Experiment 2 was a specific, short memory task that did not offer any realistic long-term gains. Future research should include a longer period before administering a recall task, as a longer delay before recall would more realistically illustrate how learning occurs in a classroom setting. Furthermore, although individual preferences in competition were obtained, individual differences in intrinsic vs. extrinsic reward preference were not accounted for, and an additional sum of a few dollars may not have been enough motivation for some individuals to increase performance. Future research should examine how competition may influence long-term memory in a true educational setting.

Because our study examined the effect of competition on memory in two tasks that also featured gains and losses, our findings may have been driven by the effect of gains and losses on attention and performance, moderated by the saliency of a competitor. Since previous research has suggested that losses can increase both attention and performance ( Yechiam and Hochman, 2013 ), future research studies should attempt to distinguish whether or not competition merely moderates this affect, especially since most competitive learning environments incorporate some type of gains and losses, such as in educational settings.

In sum, our research suggests that social motivation—specifically, competition—can have strong effects on attention and memory, although significant individual and gender differences exist. Competition in a physical effort setting may increase attention, while the presence of a competitor may have detrimental effects on memory and performance. These findings present strong implications for education, the workplace, and other real-world settings involving social interaction.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Zana J Hanini, Joe Melon, and Tanasia Hall for their help as experimenters. We would also like to thank Holly Sullivan Toole with design of the effort bar task, and James Bradley, Frank Nick, Ahmet Ceceli, Christina Bejjani, Samantha DePasque Swanson, Jamil Bhanji, Onaisa Rizki, Kiranmayee Kurimella, and Stuti Prajapati for their help as confederates. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (BCS 1150708) awarded to ET.

• Anderson N. D., Iidaka T., Cabeza R., Kapur S., McIntosh A. R., Craik F. I. (2000). The effects of divided attention on encoding-and retrieval-related brain activity: a PET study of younger and older adults . J. Cogn. Neurosci. 12 , 775–792. 10.1162/089892900562598 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashcraft M. H., Kirk E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130 , 224. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.224 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Awh E., Vogel E., Oh S.-H. (2006). Interactions between attention and working memory . Neuroscience 139 , 201–208. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2005.08.023 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46 , 610 10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.610 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beilock S. L., Carr T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130 , 701. 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.701 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beilock S. L., Carr T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail working memory and “choking under pressure” in math . Psychol. Sci. 16 , 101–105. 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00789.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berryhill M. E., Chein J., Olson I. R. (2011). At the intersection of attention and memory: the mechanistic role of the posterior parietal lobe in working memory . Neuropsychologia 49 , 1306–1315. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.02.033 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burguillo J. C. (2010). Using game theory and competition-based learning to stimulate student motivation and performance . Comput. Educ. 55 , 566–575. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassady J. C. (2004). The influence of cognitive test anxiety across the learning–testing cycle . Learn. Instr. 14 , 569–592. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.09.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chib V. S., De Martino B., Shimojo S., O’Doherty J. P. (2012). Neural mechanisms underlying paradoxical performance for monetary incentives are driven by loss aversion . Neuron 74 , 582–594. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.038 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen A., Ivry R. I., Keele S. W. (1990). Attention and structure in sequence learning . J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16 , 17 10.1037/0278-7393.16.1.17 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Craik F. I., Govoni R., Naveh-Benjamin M., Anderson N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 125 , 159. 10.1037/0096-3445.125.2.159 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowne D. P., Marlowe D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology . J. Consult. Psychol. 24 , 349. 10.1037/h0047358 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Darke S. (1988). Anxiety and working memory capacity . Cogn. Emot. 2 , 145–154. 10.1080/02699938808408071 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davis P. J. (1999). Gender differences in autobiographical memory for childhood emotional experiences . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76 , 498 10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.498 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond D. M., Campbell A. M., Park C. R., Halonen J., Zoladz P. R. (2007). The temporal dynamics model of emotional memory processing: a synthesis on the neurobiological basis of stress-induced amnesia, flashbulb and traumatic memories, and the Yerkes-Dodson law . Neural Plast. 2007 :60803. 10.1155/2007/60803 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DiMenichi B. C., Richmond L. L. (2015). Reflecting on past failures leads to increased perseverance and sustained attention . J. Cogn. Psychol. 27 , 180–193. 10.1080/20445911.2014.995104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duckworth A. L., Peterson C., Matthews M. D., Kelly D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92 , 1087. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dweck C. S., Leggett E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality . Psychol. Rev. 95 , 256 10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eason R. G., Harter M. R., White C. (1969). Effects of attention and arousal on visually evoked cortical potentials and reaction time in man . Physiol. Behav. 4 , 283–289. 10.1016/0031-9384(69)90176-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Einsel K., Turk C. L. (2011). Social anxiety and rumination: effect on anticipatory anxiety, memory bias, and beliefs . Psi Chi J. Undergrad. Res. 16 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
• Endo N., Saiki J., Saito H. (2001). Determinants of occurrence of negative priming for novel shapes with matching paradigm . Jpn J. Psychol. 72 , 204–212. [in Japanese]. 10.4992/jjpsy.72.204 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernandes M. A., Moscovitch M. (2000). Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 129 , 155. 10.1037/0096-3445.129.2.155 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederick-Recascino C. M., Schuster-Smith H. (2003). Competition and intrinsic motivation in physical activity: a comparison of two groups . J. Sport Behav. 26 , 240–254. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser J., Knowles E. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 , 164–172. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gneezy U., Leonard K. L., List J. A. (2009). Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society . Econometrica 77 , 1637–1664. 10.3982/ECTA6690 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottlieb J. (2012). Attention, learning, and the value of information . Neuron 76 , 281–295. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.034 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant H., Dweck C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85 , 541. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heine S. J., Kitayama S., Lehman D. R., Takata T., Ide E., Leung C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: an investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 , 599. 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herlitz A., Nilsson L.-G., Bäckman L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory . Mem. Cogn. 25 , 801–811. 10.3758/BF03211324 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogg M. A., Abrams D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem and social identity . Social identity theory: Const. crit. adv. 28 , 47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoorens V. (1995). Self-favoring biases, self-presentation, and the self-other asymmetry in social comparison . J. Pers. 63 , 793–817. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00317.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horswill M. S., Waylen A. E., Tofield M. I. (2004). Drivers’ ratings of different components of their own driving skill: a greater illusion of superiority for skills that relate to accident involvement . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 , 177–195. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02543.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilduff G. J. (2014). Driven to win rivalry, motivation, and performance . Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 5 , 944–952. 10.1177/1948550614539770 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Bouc R., Pessiglione M. (2013). Imaging social motivation: distinct brain mechanisms drive effort production during collaboration versus competition . J. Neurosci. 33 , 15894–15902. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0143-13.2013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luft C. D. B., Takase E., Darby D. (2009). Heart rate variability and cognitive function: effects of physical effort . Biol. Psychol. 82 , 186–191. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.07.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maatsch J. L., Adelman H. M., Denny M. (1954). Effort and resistance to extinction of the bar-pressing response . J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 47 , 47. 10.1037/h0061827 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maddi S. R., Matthews M. D., Kelly D. R., Villarreal B., White M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets . Mil. Psychol. 24 , 19–28. 10.1080/08995605.2012.639672 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGraw K. O., McCullers J. C. (1974). The distracting effect of material reward: an alternative explanation for the superior performance of reward groups in probability learning . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 18 , 149–158. 10.1016/0022-0965(74)90096-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller H., Bichsel J. (2004). Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math performance . Pers. Individ. Dif. 37 , 591–606. 10.1016/j.paid.2003.09.029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mobbs D., Hassabis D., Seymour B., Marchant J. L., Weiskopf N., Dolan R. J., et al. (2009). Choking on the money reward-based performance decrements are associated with midbrain activity . Psychol. Sci. 20 , 955–962. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02399.x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Niederle M., Vesterlund L. (2011). Gender and competition . Annu. Rev. Econ. 3 , 601–630. 10.1146/annurev-economics-111809-125122 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nissen M. J., Bullemer P. (1987). Attentional requirements of learning: evidence from performance measures . Cogn. Psychol. 19 , 1–32. 10.1016/0010-0285(87)90002-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oldfather P., Dahl K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning . J. Lit. Res. 26 , 139–158. 10.1080/10862969409547843 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens M., Stevenson J., Hadwin J. A., Norgate R. (2012). Anxiety and depression in academic performance: an exploration of the mediating factors of worry and working memory . Sch. Psychol. Int. 33 , 433–449. 10.1177/0143034311427433 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paulhus D. L. (1991). “Measurement and control of response bias,” in Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes , eds Robinson J. P., Shaver P. R., Wrightsman L. S. (San Diego, CA: Academic Press; ), 17–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prinzmetal W., McCool C., Park S. (2005). Attention: reaction time and accuracy reveal different mechanisms . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134 , 73. 10.1037/0096-3445.134.1.73 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pronin E., Lin D. Y., Ross L. (2002). The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28 , 369–381. 10.1177/0146167202286008 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramirez G., Gunderson E. A., Levine S. C., Beilock S. L. (2013). Math anxiety, working memory, and math achievement in early elementary school . J. Cogn. Dev. 14 , 187–202. 10.1080/15248372.2012.664593 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Redick T. S., Broadway J. M., Meier M. E., Kuriakose P. S., Unsworth N., Kane M. J., et al. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks . Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 28 , 164 10.1027/1015-5759/a000123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld R. A. (1978). Anxiety and learning . Teach. Sociol. 5 , 151–166. 10.2307/1317061 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryckman R. M., Hammer M., Kaczor L. M., Gold J. A. (1990). Construction of a hypercompetitive attitude scale . J. Pers. Assess. 55 , 630–639. 10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_19 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryckman R. M., Hammer M., Kaczor L. M., Gold J. A. (1996). Construction of a personal development competitive attitude scale . J. Pers. Assess. 66 , 374–385. 10.1207/s15327752jpa6602_15 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanders D. (1987). Cultural conflicts: an important factor in the academic failures of American Indian students . J. Multicult. Couns. Devel. 15 , 81–90. 10.1002/j.2161-1912.1987.tb00381.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith K. J. (1992). Using multimedia with Navajo children: an effort to alleviate problems of cultural learning style, background of experience, and motivation . Read. Writ. Q. 8 , 287–294. 10.1080/0748763920080303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spence J. T. (1970). The distracting effects of material reinforcers in the discrimination learning of lower-and middle-class children . Child Dev. 41 , 103–111. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuss D., Stethem L., Hugenholtz H., Picton T., Pivik J., Richard M. (1989). Reaction time after head injury: fatigue, divided and focused attention, and consistency of performance . J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 52 , 742–748. 10.1136/jnnp.52.6.742 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swanson S. D., Tricomi E. (2014). Goals and task difficulty expectations modulate striatal responses to feedback . Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 14 , 610–620. 10.3758/s13415-014-0269-8 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treadway M. T., Buckholtz J. W., Schwartzman A. N., Lambert W. E., Zald D. H. (2009). Worth the ‘EEfRT’? The effort expenditure for rewards task as an objective measure of motivation and anhedonia . PLoS ONE 4 :e6598. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006598 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voyer D., Postma A., Brake B., Imperato-McGinley J. (2007). Gender differences in object location memory: a meta-analysis . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14 , 23–38. 10.3758/BF03194024 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watters P. A., Martin F., Schreter Z. (1997). Caffeine and cognitive performance: the nonlinear Yerkes–Dodson Law . Hum. Psychopharmacol. 12 , 249–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wentzel K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: implications for understanding motivation at school . J. Educ. Psychol. 91 , 76 10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.76 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White S. A. (1998). Adolescent goal profiles, perceptions of the parent-initiated motivational climate, and competitive trait anxiety . Sport Psychol. 12 , 16–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yechiam E., Hochman G. (2013). Losses as modulators of attention: review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains . Psychol. Bull. 139 , 497. 10.1037/a0029383 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yerkes R. M., Dodson J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation . J. Comp. Neurol. Psychol. 18 , 459–482. 10.1002/cne.920180503 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zerbe W. J., Paulhus D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: a reconception . Acad. Manage. Rev. 12 , 250–264. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning . J. Educ. Psychol. 81 , 329 10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.329 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Relationship of anxiety (drive) and response competition in problem solving

• PMID: 5846433
• DOI: 10.1037/h0022666

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Sensory deprivation as a drive operation: effects upon problem solving. Suedfeld P, Glucksberg S, Vernon J. Suedfeld P, et al. J Exp Psychol. 1967 Oct;75(2):166-9. doi: 10.1037/h0024981. J Exp Psychol. 1967. PMID: 6062955 No abstract available.
• THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENTIAL FAILURE ON EXPECTATION OF SUCCESS, REPORTED ANXIETY, AND RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY. FEATHER NT. FEATHER NT. J Pers. 1963 Sep;31:289-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1963.tb01301.x. J Pers. 1963. PMID: 14051963 No abstract available.
• The role of ego-resiliency in the relationship between social anxiety and problem solving ability among South Korean nursing students. Jun WH, Lee G. Jun WH, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2017 Feb;49:17-21. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.11.006. Epub 2016 Nov 12. Nurse Educ Today. 2017. PMID: 27875714
• The role of achievement motive, anxiety, stimulus, and expectancy, on achievement motivation in arithmetic and thematic tests. Murstein BI, Easter LV. Murstein BI, et al. J Proj Tech Pers Assess. 1965 Dec;29(4):491-7. doi: 10.1080/0091651X.1965.10120241. J Proj Tech Pers Assess. 1965. PMID: 5842663 No abstract available.
• Manifest anxiety, induced anxiety and digit symbol performance. Moon WH, Lair CV. Moon WH, et al. Psychol Rep. 1970 Jun;26(3):947-50. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1970.26.3.947. Psychol Rep. 1970. PMID: 5433812 No abstract available.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Genetic Alliance
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Europe PMC requires Javascript to function effectively.

Either your web browser doesn't support Javascript or it is currently turned off. In the latter case, please turn on Javascript support in your web browser and reload this page.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Complex problem solving in teams: the impact of collective orientation on team process demands.

• Business Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany

Complex problem solving is challenging and a high-level cognitive process for individuals. When analyzing complex problem solving in teams, an additional, new dimension has to be considered, as teamwork processes increase the requirements already put on individual team members. After introducing an idealized teamwork process model, that complex problem solving teams pass through, and integrating the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into the model and combining it with the four kinds of team processes (transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes), the paper demonstrates the importance of fulfilling team process demands for successful complex problem solving within teams. Therefore, results from a controlled team study within complex situations are presented. The study focused on factors that influence action processes, like coordination, such as emergent states like collective orientation, cohesion, and trust and that dynamically enable effective teamwork in complex situations. Before conducting the experiments, participants were divided by median split into two-person teams with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) collective orientation values. The study was conducted with the microworld C3Fire, simulating dynamic decision making, and acting in complex situations within a teamwork context. The microworld includes interdependent tasks such as extinguishing forest fires or protecting houses. Two firefighting scenarios had been developed, which takes a maximum of 15 min each. All teams worked on these two scenarios. Coordination within the team and the resulting team performance were calculated based on a log-file analysis. The results show that no relationships between trust and action processes and team performance exist. Likewise, no relationships were found for cohesion. Only collective orientation of team members positively influences team performance in complex environments mediated by action processes such as coordination within the team. The results are discussed in relation to previous empirical findings and to learning processes within the team with a focus on feedback strategies.

Introduction

Complex problems in organizational contexts are seldom solved by individuals. Generally, interdependently working teams of experts deal with complex problems ( Fiore et al., 2010 ), which are characterized by element interactivity/ interconnectedness, dynamic developments, non-transparency and multiple, and/or conflicting goals ( Dörner et al., 1983 ; Brehmer, 1992 ; Funke, 1995 ). Complex problem solving “takes place for reducing the barrier between a given start state and an intended goal state with the help of cognitive activities and behavior. Start state, intended goal state, and barriers prove complexity, change dynamically over time, and can be partially intransparent” ( Funke, 2012 , p. 682). Teams dealing with complex problems in interdependent work contexts, for example in disaster, crisis or accident management, are called High Responsibility Teams. They are named High Responsibility Teams (HRTs; Hagemann, 2011 ; Hagemann et al., 2011 ) due to their dynamic and often unpredictable working conditions and demanding work contexts, in which technical faults and slips have severe consequences for human beings and the environment if they are not identified and resolved within the team immediately ( Kluge et al., 2009 ). HRTs bear responsibility regarding lives of third parties and their own lives based on their actions and consequences.

The context of interdependently working HRTs, dealing with complex problems, is described as follows ( Zsambok, 1997 ): Members of interdependently working teams have to reach ill-defined or competing goals in common in poor structured, non-transparent and dynamically changing situations under the consideration of rules of engagement and based on several cycles of joint action. Some or all goals are critical in terms of time and the consequences of actions result in decision-based outcomes with high importance for the culture (e.g., human life). In HRT contexts, added to the features of the complexity of the problem, is the complexity of relationships, which is called social complexity ( Dörner, 1989/2003 ) or crew coordination complexity ( Kluge, 2014 ), which results from the interconnectedness between multiple agents through coordination requirements. The dynamic control aspect of the continuous process is coupled with the need to coordinate multiple highly interactive processes imposing high coordination demands ( Roth and Woods, 1988 ; Waller et al., 2004 ; Hagemann et al., 2012 ).

Within this article, it is important to us to describe the theoretical background of complex problem solving in teams in depth and to combine different but compatible theoretical approaches, in order to demonstrate their theoretical and practical use in the context of the analysis of complex problem solving in teams. In Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a detailed description of tasks and work contexts that are in the focus of the analysis is essential. The individual or team task is the point of intersection between organization and individual as a “psychologically most relevant part” of the working conditions ( Ulich, 1995 ). Thus, the tasks and the teamwork context of teams that deal with complex problems is of high relevance in the present paper. We will comprehensively describe the context of complex problem solving in teams by introducing a model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving teams pass through and extensively integrate the relevant teamwork skills for these interdependently working teams into the idealized teamwork process model.

Furthermore, we will highlight the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combine the agreed on transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Because we are interested in investigating teamwork competencies and action processes of complex problem solving teams, we will analyze the indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance through the teams' coordination behavior. The focusing of the study will be owed to its validity. Even though that we know that more aspects of the theoretical framework might be of interest and could be analyzed, we will focus on a detail within the laboratory experiment for getting reliable and valid results.

Goal, Task, and Outcome Interdependence in Teamwork

Concerning interdependence, teamwork research focuses on three designated features, which are in accordance with general process models of human action ( Hertel et al., 2004 ). One type is goal interdependence, which refers to the degree to which teams have distinct goals as well as a linkage between individual members and team goals ( Campion et al., 1993 ; Wageman, 1995 ). A second type is task interdependence, which refers to the interaction between team members. The team members depend on each other for work accomplishment, and the actions of one member have strong implications for the work process of all members ( Shea and Guzzo, 1987 ; Campion et al., 1993 ; Hertel et al., 2004 ). The third type is outcome interdependence, which is defined as the extent to which one team member's outcomes depend on the performance of other members ( Wageman, 1995 ). Accordingly, the rewards for each member are based on the total team performance ( Hertel et al., 2004 ). This can occur, for instance, if a team receives a reward based on specific performance criteria. Although interdependence is often the reason why teams are formed in the first place, and it is stated as a defining attribute of teams ( Salas et al., 2008 ), different levels of task interdependence exist ( Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Arthur et al., 2005 ).

The workflow pattern of teams can be

(1) Independent or pooled (activities are performed separately),

(2) Sequential (activities flow from one member to another in a unidirectional manner),

(3) Reciprocal (activities flow between team members in a back and forth manner) or

(4) Intensive (team members must simultaneously diagnose, problem-solve, and coordinate as a team to accomplish a task).

Teams that deal with complex problems work within intensive interdependence, which requires greater coordination patterns compared to lower levels of interdependence ( Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitates mutual adjustments as well as frequent interaction and information integration within the team ( Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ).

Thus, in addition to the cognitive requirements related to information processing (e.g., encoding, storage and retrieval processes ( Hinsz et al., 1997 ), simultaneously representing and anticipating the dynamic elements and predicting future states of the problem, balancing contradictory objectives and decide on the right timing for actions to execute) of individual team members, the interconnectedness between the experts in the team imposes high team process demands on the team members. These team process demands follow from the required interdependent actions of all team members for effectively using all resources, such as equipment, money, time, and expertise, to reach high team performance ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Examples for team process demands are the communication for building a shared situation awareness, negotiating conflicting perspectives on how to proceed or coordinating and orchestrating actions of all team members.

A Comprehensive Model of the Idealized Teamwork Process

The cognitive requirements, that complex problem solving teams face, and the team process demands are consolidated within our model of an idealized teamwork process in Figure 1 ( Hagemann, 2011 ; Kluge et al., 2014 ). Individual and team processes converge sequential and in parallel and influencing factors as well as process demands concerning complex problem solving in teams can be extracted. The core elements of the model are situation awareness, information transfer, individual and shared mental models, coordination and leadership, and decision making.

Figure 1 . Relevant teamwork skills (orange color) for interdependently working teams (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) integrated into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Complex problem solving teams are responsible for finding solutions and reaching specified goals. Based on the overall goals various sub goals will be identified at the beginning of the teamwork process in the course of mission analysis, strategy formulation and planning, all aspects of the transition phase ( Marks et al., 2001 ). The transition phase processes occur during periods of time when teams focus predominantly on evaluation and/or planning activities. The identified and communicated goals within the team represent relevant input variables for each team member in order to build up a Situation Awareness (SA). SA contains three steps and is the foundation for an ideal and goal directed collaboration within a team ( Endsley, 1999 ; Flin et al., 2008 ). The individual SA is the start and end within the idealized teamwork process model. SA means the assessment of a situation which is important for complex problem solving teams, as they work based on the division of labor as well as interdependently and each team member needs to achieve a correct SA and to share it within the team. Each single team member needs to utilize all technical and interpersonal resources in order to collect and interpret up-to-date goal directed information and to share this information with other team members via “closed-loop communication.”

This information transfer focuses on sending and receiving single SA between team members in order to build up a Shared Situation Awareness (SSA). Overlapping cuts of individual SA are synchronized within the team and a bigger picture of the situation is developed. Creating a SSA means sharing a common perspective of the members concerning current events within their environment, their meaning and their future development. This shared perspective enables problem-solving teams to attain high performance standards through corresponding and goal directed actions ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ).

Expectations of each team member based on briefings, individual mental models and interpositional knowledge influence the SA, the information transfer and the consolidation process. Mental models are internal and cognitive representations of relations and processes (e.g., execution of tactics) between various aspects or elements of a situation. They help team members to describe, explain and predict circumstances ( Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Mental models possess knowledge elements required by team members in order to assess a current situation in terms of SA. Interpositional knowledge refers to an individual understanding concerning the tasks and duties of all team members, in order to develop an understanding about the impact of own actions on the actions of other team members and vice versa. It supports the team in identifying the information needs and the amount of required help of other members and in avoiding team conflicts ( Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001 ). This knowledge is the foundation for anticipating the team members' needs for information and it is important for matching information within the team.

Based on the information matching process within the team, a common understanding of the problem, the goals and the current situation is developed in terms of a Shared Mental Model (SMM), which is important for the subsequent decisions. SMM are commonly shared mental models within a team and refer to the organized knowledge structures of all team members, that are shared with each other and which enable the team to interact goal-oriented ( Mathieu et al., 2000 ). SMM help complex problem solving teams during high workload to adapt fast and efficiently to changing situations ( Waller et al., 2004 ). They also enhance the teams' performance and communication processes ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ). Especially under time pressure and in crucial situations when overt verbal communication and explicit coordination is not applicable, SMM are fundamental in order to coordinate implicitly. This information matching process fosters the building of a shared understanding of the current situation and the required actions. In order to do so teamwork skills (see Wilson et al., 2010 ) such as communication, coordination , and cooperation within the team are vitally important. Figure 1 incorporates the teamwork skills into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Depending on the shared knowledge and SA within the team, the coordination can be based either on well-known procedures or shared expectations within the team or on explicit communication based on task specific phraseology or closed-loop communication. Cooperation needs mutual performance monitoring within the team, for example, in order to apply task strategies to accurately monitor teammate performance and prevent errors ( Salas et al., 2005 ). Cooperation also needs backup behavior of each team member, for example, and continuous actions in reference to the collective events. The anticipation of other team members' needs under high workload maintains the teams' performance and the well-being of each team member ( Badke-Schaub, 2008 ). A successful pass through the teamwork process model also depends e.g., on the trust and the cohesion within the team and the collective orientation of each team member.

Collective orientation (CO) is defined “as the propensity to work in a collective manner in team settings” ( Driskell et al., 2010 , p. 317). Highly collectively oriented people work with others on a task-activity and team-activity track ( Morgan et al., 1993 ) in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input, contribute to team outcomes, enjoy team membership, and value cooperativeness more than power ( Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, teams with collectively oriented members perform better than teams with non-collectively oriented members ( Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). CO, trust and cohesion as well as other coordination and cooperation skills are so called emergent sates that represent cognitive, affective, and motivational states, and not traits, of teams and team members, and which are influenced, for example, by team experience, so that emergent states can be considered as team inputs but also as team outcomes ( Marks et al., 2001 ).

Based on the information matching process the complex problem solving team or the team leader needs to make decisions in order to execute actions. The task prioritization and distribution is an integrated part of this step ( Waller et al., 2004 ). Depending on the progress of the dynamic, non-transparent and heavily foreseeable situation tasks have to be re-prioritized during episodes of teamwork. Episodes are “temporal cycles of goal-directed activity” in which teams perform ( Marks et al., 2001 , p. 359). Thus, the team acts adaptive and is able to react flexible to situation changes. The team coordinates implicitly when each team member knows what he/she has to do in his/her job, what the others expect from him/her and how he/she interacts with the others. In contrast, when abnormal events occur and they are recognized during SA processes, the team starts coordinating explicitly via communication, for example. Via closed-loop communication and based on interpositional knowledge new strategies are communicated within the team and tasks are re-prioritized.

The result of the decision making and action taking flows back into the individual SA and the as-is state will be compared with the original goals. This model of an idealized teamwork process (Figure 1 ) is a regulator circuit with feedback loops, which enables a team to adapt flexible to changing environments and goals. The foundation of this model is the classic Input-Process-Outcome (IPO) framework ( Hackman, 1987 ) with a strong focus on the process part. IPO models view processes as mechanisms linking variables such as member, team, or organizational features with outcomes such as performance quality and quantity or members' reactions. This mediating mechanism, the team process , can be defined as “members' interdependent acts that convert inputs to outcomes through cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward organizing taskwork to achieve collective goals” ( Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). That means team members interact interdependently with other members as well as with their environment. These cognitive, verbal, and behavioral activities directed toward taskwork and goal attainment are represented as gathering situation awareness, communication, coordination, cooperation, the consolidation of information, and task prioritization within our model of an idealized teamwork process. Within the context of complex problem solving, teams have to face team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges related to individual information processing. That means teamwork processes and taskwork to solve complex problems co-occur, the processes guide the execution of taskwork.

The dynamic nature of teamwork and temporal influences on complex problem solving teams are considered within adapted versions ( Marks et al., 2001 ; Ilgen et al., 2005 ) of the original IPO framework. These adaptations propose that teams experience cycles of joint action, so called episodes, in which teams perform and also receive feedback for further actions. The IPO cycles occur sequentially and simultaneously and are nested in transition and action phases within episodes in which outcomes from initial episodes serve as inputs for the next cycle (see Figure 2 ). These repetitive IPO cycles are a vital element of our idealized teamwork process model, as it incorporates feedback loops in such a way, that the outcomes, e.g., changes within the as-is state, are continuously compared with the original goals. Detected discrepancies within the step of updating SA motivate the team members to consider further actions for goal accomplishment.

Figure 2 . Teamwork episodes with repetitive IPO cycles ( Marks et al., 2001 ).

When applying this episodic framework to complex problem solving teams it becomes obvious that teams handle different types of taskwork at different phases of task accomplishment ( Marks et al., 2001 ). That means episodes consist of two phases, so-called action and transition phases , in which teams are engaged in activities related to goal attainment and in other time in reflecting on past performance and planning for further common actions. The addition of the social complexity to the complexity of the problem within collaborative complex problem solving comes to the fore here. During transition phases teams evaluate their performance, compare the as-is state against goals, reflect on their strategies and plan future activities to guide their goal accomplishment. For example, team members discuss alternative courses of action, if their activities for simulated firefighting, such as splitting team members in order to cover more space of the map, are not successful. During action phases, teams focus directly on the taskwork and are engaged in activities such as exchanging information about the development of the dynamic situation or supporting each other. For example, a team member recognizes high workload of another team member and supports him/her in collecting information or in taking over the required communication with other involved parties.

Transition and Action Phases

The idealized teamwork process model covers these transition and action phases as well as the processes occurring during these two phases of team functioning, which can be clustered into transition, action, and interpersonal processes. That means during complex problem solving the relevant or activated teamwork processes in the transition and action phases change as teams move back and forth between these phases. As this taxonomy of team processes from Marks et al. (2001) states that a team process is multidimensional and teams use different processes simultaneously, some processes can occur either during transition periods or during action periods or during both periods. Transition processes especially occur during transition phases and enable the team to understand their tasks, guide their attention, specify goals and develop courses of action for task accomplishment. Thus, transition processes include (see Marks et al., 2001 ) mission analysis, formulation and planning ( Prince and Salas, 1993 ), e.g., fighting a forest fire, goal specification ( Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), e.g., saving as much houses and vegetation as possible, and strategy formulation ( Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., spreading team members into different geographic directions. Action processes predominantly occur during action phases and support the team in conducting activities directly related to goal accomplishment. Thus, action processes are monitoring progress toward goals ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., collecting information how many cells in a firefighting simulation are still burning, systems monitoring ( Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), e.g., tracking team resources such as water for firefighting, team monitoring and backup behavior ( Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Salas et al., 2005 ), e.g., helping a team member and completing a task for him/her, and coordination ( Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ; Serfaty et al., 1998 ), e.g., orchestrating the interdependent actions of the team members such as exchanging information during firefighting about positions of team members for meeting at the right time at the right place in order to refill the firefighters water tanks. Especially the coordination process is influenced by the amount of task interdependence as coordination becomes more and more important for effective team functioning when interdependence increases ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Interpersonal processes occur during transition and action phases equally and lay the foundation for the effectiveness of other processes and govern interpersonal activities ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, interpersonal processes include conflict management ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), like the development of team rules, motivation and confidence building ( Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ), like encourage team members to perform better, and affect management ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ), e.g., regulating member emotions during complex problem solving.

Summing up, process demands such as transition processes that complex problem solving teams pass through, are mission analysis, planning, briefing and goal specification, visualized on the left side of the idealized teamwork process model (see Figure 3 ). The results of these IPO cycles lay the foundation for gathering a good SA and initiating activities directed toward taskwork and goal accomplishment and therefore initiating action processes. The effective execution of action processes depends on the communication, coordination, cooperation, matching of information, and task prioritization as well as emergent team cognition variables (SSA and SMM) within the team. The results, like decisions, of these IPO cycles flow back into the next episode and may initiate further transition processes. In addition, interpersonal processes play a crucial role for complex problem solving teams. That means, conflict management, motivating and confidence building, and affect management are permanently important, no matter whether a team runs through transition or action phases and these interpersonal processes frame the whole idealized teamwork process model. Therefore, interpersonal processes are also able to impede successful teamwork at any point as breakdowns in conflict or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns ( Wilson et al., 2010 ) or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Thus, complex problem solving teams have to face these multidimensional team process demands in addition to cognitive challenges, e.g., information storage or retrieval ( Hinsz et al., 1997 ), related to individual information processing.

Figure 3 . The integration of transition, action, interpersonal, and learning processes into the model of an idealized teamwork process.

Team Learning Opportunities for Handling Complex Problems

In order to support teams in handling complex situations or problems, learning opportunities seem to be very important for successful task accomplishment and for reducing possible negative effects of team process demands. Learning means any kind of relative outlasted changes in potential of human behavior that cannot be traced back to age-related changes ( Bower and Hilgard, 1981 ; Bredenkamp, 1998 ). Therefore, Schmutz et al. (2016) amended the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. (2001) and added learning processes as a fourth category of processes, which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to overall team effectiveness. Learning processes (see also Edmondson, 1999 ) include observation, e.g., observing own and other team members' actions such as the teammate's positioning of firewalls in order to protect houses in case of firefighting, feedback, like giving a teammate information about the wind direction for effective positioning of firewalls, and reflection, e.g., talking about procedures for firefighting or refilling water tanks, for example, within the team. Learning from success and failure and identifying future problems is crucial for the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams and therefore possibilities for learning based on repetitive cycles of joint action or episodes and reflection of team members' activities during action and transition phases should be used effectively ( Edmondson, 1999 ; Marks et al., 2001 ). The processes of the idealized teamwork model are embedded into these learning processes (see Figure 3 ).

The fulfillment of transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes contribute significantly to successful team performance in complex problem solving. For clustering these processes, transition and action processes could be seen as operational processes and interpersonal and learning process as support processes. When dealing with complex and dynamic situations teams have to face these team process demands more strongly than in non-complex situations. For example, goal specification and prioritization or strategy formulation, both aspects of transition processes, are strongly influenced by multiple goals, interconnectedness or dynamically and constantly changing conditions. The same is true for action processes, such as monitoring progress toward goals, team monitoring and backup behavior or coordination of interdependent actions. Interpersonal processes, such as conflict and affect management or confidence building enhance the demands put on team members compared to individuals working on complex problems. Interpersonal processes are essential for effective teamwork and need to be cultivated during episodes of team working, because breakdowns in confidence building or affect management can lead to coordination breakdowns or problems with monitoring or backing up teammates ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Especially within complex situations aspects such as interdependence, delayed feedback, multiple goals and dynamic changes put high demands on interpersonal processes within teams. Learning processes, supporting interpersonal processes and the result of effective teamwork are e.g., observation of others' as well as own actions and receiving feedback by others or the system and are strongly influenced by situational characteristics such as non-transparency or delayed feedback concerning actions. It is assumed that amongst others team learning happens through repetitive cycles of joint action within the action phases and reflection of team members within the transition phases ( Edmondson, 1999 ; Gabelica et al., 2014 ; Schmutz et al., 2016 ). The repetitive cycles help to generate SMM ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993 ; Mathieu et al., 2000 ), SSA ( Endsley and Robertson, 2000 ) or transactive memory systems ( Hollingshead et al., 2012 ) within the team.

Emergent States in Complex Team Work and the Role of Collective Orientation

IPO models propose that input variables and emergent states are able to influence team processes and therefore outcomes such as team performance positively. Emergent states represent team members' attitudes or motivations and are “properties of the team that are typically dynamic in nature and vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes” ( Marks et al., 2001 , p. 357). Both emergent states and interaction processes are relevant for team effectiveness ( Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

Emergent states refer to conditions that underlie and dynamically enable effective teamwork ( DeChurch and Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ) and can be differentiated from team process, which refers to interdependent actions of team members that transform inputs into outcomes based on activities directed toward task accomplishment ( Marks et al., 2001 ). Emergent states mainly support the execution of behavioral processes (e.g., planning, coordination, backup behavior) during the action phase, meaning during episodes when members are engaged in acts that focus on task work and goal accomplishment. Emergent states like trust, cohesion and CO are “products of team experiences (including team processes) and become new inputs to subsequent processes and outcomes” ( Marks et al., 2001 , p. 358). Trust between team members and cohesion within the team are emergent states that develop over time and only while experiencing teamwork in a specific team. CO is an emergent state that a team member brings along with him/her into the teamwork, is assumed to be more persistent than trust and cohesion, and can, but does not have to, be positively and negatively influenced by experiencing teamwork in a specific team for a while or by means of training ( Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ). Thus, viewing emergent states on a continuum, trust and cohesion are assumed more fluctuating than CO, but CO is much more sensitive to change and direct experience than a stable trait such as a personality trait.

CO of team members is one of the teamwork-relevant competencies that facilitates team processes, such as collecting and sharing information between team members, and positively affects the success of teams, as people who are high in CO work with others in a goal-oriented manner, seek others' input and contribute to team outcomes ( Driskell et al., 2010 ). CO is an emergent state, as it can be an input variable as well as a teamwork outcome. CO is context-dependent, becomes visible in reactions to situations and people, and can be influenced by experience (e.g., individual learning experiences with various types of teamwork) or knowledge or training ( Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Bell, 2007 ). CO enhances team performance through activating transition and action processes such as coordination, evaluation and consideration of task inputs from other team members while performing a team task ( Driskell and Salas, 1992 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Collectively oriented people effectively use available resources in due consideration of the team's goals, participate actively and adapt teamwork processes adequately to the situation.

Driskell et al. (2010) and Hagemann (2017) provide a sound overview of the evidence of discriminant and convergent validity of CO compared to other teamwork-relevant constructs, such as cohesion, also an emergent state, or cooperative interdependence or preference for solitude. Studies analyzing collectively and non-collectively oriented persons' decision-making in an interdependent task demonstrated that teams with non-collectively oriented members performed poorly in problem solving and that members with CO judged inputs from teammates as more valuable and considered these inputs more frequently ( Driskell and Salas, 1992 ). Eby and Dobbins (1997) also showed that CO results in increased coordination among team members, which may enhance team performance through information sharing, goal setting and strategizing ( Salas et al., 2005 ). Driskell et al. (2010) and Hagemann (2017) analyzed CO in relation to team performance and showed that the effect of CO on team performance depends on the task type (see McGrath, 1984 ). Significant positive relationships between team members' CO and performance were found in relation to the task types choosing/decision making and negotiating ( Driskell et al., 2010 ) respectively choosing/decision making ( Hagemann, 2017 ). These kinds of tasks are characterized by much more interdependence than task types such as executing or generating tasks. As research shows that the positive influence of CO on team performance unfolds especially in interdependent teamwork contexts ( Driskell et al., 2010 ), which require more team processes such as coordination patterns ( Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Wageman, 1995 ) and necessitate mutual adjustments as well as frequent information integration within the team ( Gibson, 1999 ; Stajkovic et al., 2009 ), CO might be vitally important for complex problem solving teams. Thus, CO as an emergent state of single team members might be a valuable resource for enhancing the team's performance when exposed to solving complex problems. Therefore, it will be of interest to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and performance within complex problem solving teams. We predict that the positive effect of CO on team performance is an indirect effect through coordination processes within the team, which are vitally important for teams working in intensive interdependent work contexts.

Hypothesis 1: CO leads to a better coordination behavior, which in turn leads to a higher team performance.

As has been shown in team research that emergent states like trust and cohesion (see also Figure 1 ) affect team performance, these two constructs are analyzed in conjunction with CO concerning action processes, such as coordination behavior and team performance. Trust between team members supports information sharing and the willingness to accept feedback, and therefore positively influences teamwork processes ( McAllister, 1995 ; Salas et al., 2005 ). Cohesion within a team facilitates motivational factors and group processes like coordination and enhances team performance ( Beal et al., 2003 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ).

Hypothesis 2: Trust shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.

Hypothesis 3: Cohesion shows a positive relationship with (a) action processes (team coordination) and with (b) team performance.

Materials and Methods

In order to demonstrate the importance of team process demands for complex problem solving in teams, we used a computer-based microworld in a laboratory study. We analyzed the effectiveness of complex problem solving teams while considering the influence of input variables, like collective orientation of team members and trust and cohesion within the team, on action processes within teams, like coordination.

The Microworld for Investigating Teams Process Demands

We used the simulation-based team task C 3 Fire ( Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund and Johansson, 2004 ), which is described as an intensive interdependence team task for complex problem solving ( Arthur et al., 2005 ). C 3 Fire is a command, control and communications simulation environment that allows teams' coordination and communication in complex and dynamic environments to be analyzed. C 3 Fire is a microworld, as important characteristics of the real world are transferred to a small and well-controlled simulation system. The task environment in C 3 Fire is complex, dynamic and opaque (see Table 1 ) and therefore similar to the cognitive tasks people usually encounter in real-life settings, in and outside their work place ( Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ; Funke, 2001 ). Figure 4 demonstrates how the complexity characteristics mentioned in Table 1 are realized in C 3 Fire. The screenshot represents the simulation manager's point of view, who is able to observe all units and actions and the scenario development. For more information about the units and scenarios, please (see the text below and the Supplementary Material). Complexity requires people to consider a number of facts. Because executed actions in C 3 Fire influence the ongoing process, the sequencing of actions is free and not stringent, such as a fixed (if X then Y) or parallel (if X then Y and Z) sequence ( Ormerod et al., 1998 ). This can lead to stressful situations. Taking these characteristics of microworlds into consideration, team processes during complex problem solving can be analyzed within laboratories under controlled conditions. Simulated microworlds such as C 3 Fire allow the gap to be bridged between laboratory studies, which might show deficiencies regarding ecological validity, and field studies, which have been criticized due to their small amount of control (see Brehmer and Dörner, 1993 ).

Table 1 . Overview of complexity characteristics of microworlds in general and in C 3 Fire (cf. Funke, 2001 ).

Figure 4 . Examples for the complexity characteristics in Table 1 represented within a simulation scenario in C 3 Fire.

In C 3 Fire, the teams' task is to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. The team members' actions are interdependent. The simulation includes, e.g., forest fires, houses, tents, gas tanks, different kinds of vegetation and computer-simulated agents such as firefighting units ( Granlund, 2003 ). It is possible, for example, that the direction of wind will change during firefighting and the time until different kinds of vegetation are burned down varies between those. In the present study, two simulation scenarios were developed for two-person teams and consisted of two firefighting units, one mobile water tank unit (responsible for re-filling the firefighting units' water tanks that contain a predefined amount of water) and one fire-break unit (a field defended with a fire-break cannot be ignited; the fire spreads around its ends). The two developed scenarios lasted for 15 min maximum. Each team member was responsible for two units in each scenario; person one for firefighting and water tank unit and person two for firefighting and fire-break unit. The user interface was a map system (40 × 40 square grid) with all relevant geographic information and positions of all symbols representing houses, water tank units and so on. All parts of the map with houses and vegetation were visible for the subjects, but not the fire itself or the other units; instead, the subjects were close to them with their own units (restricted visibility field; 3 × 3 square grid). The simulation was run on computers networked in a client-server configuration. The subjects used a chat system for communication that was logged. For each scenario, C 3 Fire creates a detailed log file containing all events that occurred over the course of the simulation. Examples of the C 3 Fire scenarios are provided in the Figures S1–3 and a short introduction into the microworld is given in the video. Detailed information regarding the scenario characteristics are given in Table S1. From scenario one to two, the complexity and interdependence increased.

Participants

The study was conducted from Mai 2014 until March 2015. Undergraduate and graduate students ( N = 116) studying applied cognitive sciences participated in the study (68.1% female). Their mean age was 21.17 years ( SD = 3.11). Participants were assigned to 58 two-person teams, with team assignments being based on the pre-measured CO values (see procedure). They received 2 hourly credits as a trial subject and giveaways such as pencils and non-alcoholic canned drinks. The study was approved by the university's ethics committee in February 2014.

The study was conducted within a laboratory setting at a university department for business psychology. Prior to the experiment, the participants filled in the CO instrument online and gave written informed consent (see Figure 5 ). The median was calculated subsequently ( Md = 3.12; range: 1.69–4.06; scale range: 1–5) relating to the variable CO and two individuals with either high ( n = 58) or low ( n = 58) CO values were randomly matched as teammates. The matching process was random in part, as those two subjects were matched to form a team, whose preferred indicated time for participation in a specific week during data collection were identical. The participants were invited to the experimental study by e-mail 1–2 weeks after filling in the CO instrument. The study began with an introduction to the experimental procedure and the teams' task. The individuals received time to familiarize themselves with the simulation, received 20 min of training and completed two practice trials. After the training, participants answered a questionnaire collecting demographic data. Following this, a simulation scenario started and the participants had a maximum of 15 min to coordinate their actions to extinguish a forest fire whilst protecting houses and saving lives. After that, at measuring time T1, participants answered questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion within the team. Again, the teams worked on the following scenario 2 followed by a last round of questionnaires assessing trust and cohesion at T2.

Figure 5 . Overview about the procedure and measures.

Demographic data such as age, sex, and study course were assessed after the training at the beginning of the experiment.

Collective Orientation was measured at an individual level with 16 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ) developed by the authors ( Hagemann, 2017 ) based on the work of Driskell et al. (2010) . The factorial structure concerning the German-language CO scale was proven prior to this study (χ 2 = 162.25, df = 92, p = 0.000, χ 2 /df = 1.76, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.040, CI = 0.030-0.051, SRMR = 0.043) and correlations for testing convergent and discriminant evidence of validity were satisfying. For example, CO correlated r = 0.09 ( p > 0.10) with cohesion, r = 0.34 ( p < 0.01) with cooperative interdependence and r = −0.28 ( p < 0.01) with preference for solitude ( Hagemann, 2017 ). An example item is “ I find working on team projects to be very satisfying ”. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.81.

Trust in team members' integrity, trust in members' task abilities and trust in members' work-related attitudes ( Geister et al., 2006 ) was measured with seven items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ I can trust that I will have no additional demands due to lack of motivation of my team member .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.83 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Cohesion was measured with a six-item scale from Riordan and Weatherly (1999) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree ). An example item is “ In this team, there is a lot of team spirit among the members .” Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.87 (T1) and 0.87 (T2).

Action Process: Coordination

Successful coordination requires mechanisms that serve to manage dependencies between the teams' activities and their resources. Coordination effectiveness was assessed based on the time the firefighting units spent without water in the field in relation to the total scenario time. This measure is an indicator of the effectiveness of resource-oriented coordination, as it reflects an efficient performance regarding the water refill process in C 3 Fire, which requires coordinated actions between the two firefighting units and one water tank unit ( Lafond et al., 2011 ). The underlying assumption is that a more successful coordination process leads to fewer delays in conducting the refill process. Coordination was calculated by a formula and values ranged between 0 and 1, with lower values indicating better coordination in the team (see Jobidon et al., 2012 ).

Team Performance

This measure related to the teams' goals (limiting the number of burned out cells and saving as many houses/buildings as possible) and was quantified as the number of protected houses and the number of protected fields and bushes/trees in relation to the number of houses, fields, and bushes/trees, respectively, which would burn in a worst case scenario. This formula takes into account that teams needing more time for firefighting also have more burning cells and show a less successful performance than teams that are quick in firefighting. To determine the worst case scenario, both 15-min scenarios were run with no firefighting action taken. Thus, the particularities (e.g., how many houses would burn down if no action was taken) of each scenario were considered. Furthermore, the houses, bushes/trees and fields were weighted according to their differing importance, mirroring the teams' goals. Houses should be protected and were most important. Bushes/trees (middle importance) burn faster than fields (lowest importance) and foster the expansion of the fire. Values regarding team performance ranged between 0 and 7.99, with higher values indicating a better overall performance. Team performance was calculated as follows (see Table 2 ):

Table 2 . Explanation of formula for calculating team performance in both scenarios.

Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables are provided in Table 3 .

Table 3 . Means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and correlations for all study variables.

Team complex problem solving in scenario 1 correlated significantly negative with time without water in scenario 1, indicating that a high team performance is attended by the coordination behavior (as a team process). The same was true for scenario 2. In addition, time without water as an indicator for team coordination correlated significantly negative with the team members' CO, indicating that team members with high CO values experience less time without water in the microworld than teams with members with low CO values.

In order to analyze the influence of CO on team process demands such as coordination processes and thereby performance within complex problem solving teams we tested whether CO would show an indirect effect on team performance through the teams' coordination processes. To analyze this assumption, indirect effects in simple mediation models were estimated for both scenarios (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 ). The mean for CO was 3.44 ( SD = 0.32) for teams with high CO values and it was 2.79 ( SD = 0.35) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning team performance in scenario 1 for teams with high CO values was 6.30 ( SD = 1.64) and with low CO values 5.35 ( SD = 2.30). The mean concerning time without water (coordination behavior) for teams with high CO values was 0.16 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.20 ( SD = 0.09). In scenario 2 the mean for team performance was 6.26 ( SD = 2.51) for teams with high CO values and it was 4.36 ( SD = 2.24) for teams with low CO values. The mean concerning time without water for teams with high CO values was 0.18 ( SD = 0.08) and with low CO values 0.25 ( SD = 0.11).

For analyzing indirect effects, CO was the independent variable, time without water the mediator and team performance the dependent variable. The findings indicated that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water for scenario 1 (Table 4 ) and scenario 2 (Table 5 ). In scenario 1, CO had no direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ), but CO significantly predicted time without water ( b(MX) ). A significant total effect ( b(YX) ) is not an assumption in the assessment of indirect effects, and therefore the non-significance of this relationship does not violate the analysis (see Preacher and Hayes, 2004 , p. 719). Furthermore, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). The indirect effect was 0.40 and significant when using normal distribution and estimated with the Sobel test ( z = 1.97, p < 0.05). The bootstrap procedure was applied to estimate the effect size not based on the assumption of normal distribution. As displayed in Table 4 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.41 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.0084 and 0.9215 with a 95% confidence interval. As zero is not in the 95% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).

Table 4 . Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 1.

Table 5 . Indirect Effect for Coordination and Team Performance in Scenario 2.

Regarding scenario 2, CO had a direct effect on team performance ( b(YX) ) and on time without water ( b(MX) ). Again, time without water significantly predicted team performance when controlling for CO ( b(YM.X) ), whereas the effect of CO on team performance was not significant when controlling for time without water ( b(YX.M) ). This time, the indirect effect was 0.60 (Sobel test, z = 2.31, p < 0.05). As displayed in Table 5 , the bootstrapped estimate of the indirect effect was 0.61 and the true indirect effect was estimated to lie between 0.1876 and 1.1014 with a 95% confidence interval and between 0.0340 and 1.2578 with a 99% confidence interval. Because zero is not in the 99% confidence interval, it can be concluded that the indirect effect is indeed significantly different from zero at p < 0.01 (two-tailed).

The indirect effects for both scenarios are visualized in Figure 6 . Summing up, the results support hypothesis 1 and indicate that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by the teams' coordination behavior, an action process. That means, fulfilling team process demands affect the dynamic decision making quality of teams acting in complex situations and input variables such as CO influence the action processes within teams positively.

Figure 6 . Indirect effect of collective orientation on team performance via coordination within the teams for scenario 1 and 2, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, numbers in italic represent results from scenario 2, non-italic numbers are from scenario 1.

Trust between team members assessed after scenario 1 (T1) and after scenario 2 (T2) did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team complex problem solving in scenarios 1 and 2 (Table 3 ). Thus, hypotheses 2a and 2b are not supported. Cohesion at T1 showed no significant relationship with team performance in both scenarios, one significant negative correlation ( r = −0.22, p < 0.05) with the coordination behavior in scenario 1 and no correlation with the coordination behavior in scenario 2. Cohesion at T2 did not show any significant correlation with the coordination behavior or with team performance in both scenarios. Thus, hypotheses 3a and 3b could also not be supported. Furthermore, the results showed no significant relations between CO and trust and cohesion. The correlations between trust and cohesion ranged between r = 0.39 and r = 0.51 ( p < 0.01).

The purpose of our paper was first to give a sound theoretical overview and to combine theoretical approaches about team competencies and team process demands in collaborative complex problem solving and second to demonstrate the importance of selected team competencies and processes on team performance in complex problem solving by means of results from a laboratory study. We introduced the model of an idealized teamwork process that complex problem solving team pass through and integrated the relevant teamwork skills for interdependently working teams into it. Moreover, we highlighted the episodic aspect concerning complex problem solving in teams and combined the well-known transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes of teamwork with the idealized teamwork process model. Finally, we investigated the influence of trust, cohesion, and CO on action processes, such as coordination behavior of complex problem solving teams and on team performance.

Regarding hypothesis 1, studies have indicated that teams whose members have high CO values are more successful in their coordination processes and task accomplishment ( Eby and Dobbins, 1997 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ; Hagemann, 2017 ), which may enhance team performance through considering task inputs from other team members, information sharing and strategizing ( Salas et al., 2005 ). Thus, we had a close look on CO as an emergent state in the present study, because emergent states support the execution of behavioral processes. In order to analyze this indirect effect of CO on team performance via coordination processes, we used the time, which firefighters spent without water in a scenario, as an indicator for high-quality coordination within the team. A small amount of time without water represents sharing information and resources between team members in a reciprocal manner, which are essential qualities of effective coordination ( Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). One of the two team members was in charge of the mobile water tank unit and therefore responsible for filling up the water tanks of his/her own firefighting unit and that of the other team member on time. In order to avoid running out of water for firefighting, the team members had to exchange information about, for example, their firefighting units' current and future positions in the field, their water levels, their strategies for extinguishing one or two fires, and the water tank unit's current and future position in the field. The simple mediation models showed that CO has an indirect effect on team performance mediated by time without water, supporting hypothesis 1. Thus, CO facilitates high-quality coordination within complex problem solving teams and this in turn influences decision-making and team performance positively (cf. Figure 1 ). These results support previous findings concerning the relationships between emergent states, such as CO, and the team process, such as action processes like coordination ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ; Driskell et al., 2010 ) and between the team process and the team performance ( Stevens and Campion, 1994 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ).

Hypotheses 2 and 3 analyzed the relationships between trust and cohesion and coordination and team performance. Because no correlations between trust and cohesion and the coordination behavior and team complex problem solving existed, further analyses, like mediation analyses, were unnecessary. In contrast to other studies ( McAllister, 1995 ; Beal et al., 2003 ; Salas et al., 2005 ; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ), the present study was not able to detect effects of trust and cohesion on team processes, like action processes, or on team performance. This can be attributed to the restricted sample composition or the rather small sample size. Nevertheless, effect sizes were small to medium, so that they would have become significant with an increased sample sizes. The prerequisite, mentioned by the authors, that interdependence of the teamwork is important for identifying those effects, was given in the present study. Therefore, this aspect could not have been the reason for finding no effects concerning trust and cohesion. Trust and cohesion within the teams developed during working on the simulation scenarios while fighting fires, showed significant correlations with each other, and were unrelated to CO, which showed an effect on the coordination behavior and the team performance indeed. The results seem to implicate, that the influence of CO on action processes and team performance might be much more stronger than those of trust and cohesion. If these results can be replicated should be analyzed in future studies.

As the interdependent complex problem-solving task was a computer-based simulation, the results might have been affected by the participants' attitudes to using a computer. For example, computer affinity seems to be able to minimize potential fear of working with a simulation environment and might therefore, be able to contribute to successful performance in a computer-based team task. Although computers and other electronic devices are pervasive in present-day life, computer aversion has to be considered in future studies within complex problem-solving research when applying computer-based simulation team tasks. As all of the participants were studying applied cognitive science, which is a mix of psychology and computer science, this problem might not have been influenced the present results. However, the specific composition of the sample reduces the external validity of the study and the generalizability of the results. A further limitation is the small sample size, so that moderate to small effects are difficult to detect.

Furthermore, laboratory research of teamwork might have certain limitations. Teamwork as demonstrated in this study fails to account for the fact that teams are not simple, static and isolated entities ( McGrath et al., 2000 ). The validity of the results could be reduced insofar as the complex relationships in teams were not represented, the teamwork context was not considered, not all teammates and teams were comparable, and the characteristic as a dynamic system with a team history and future was not given in the present study. This could be a possible explanation why no effects of trust and cohesion were found in the present study. Maybe, the teams need more time working together on the simulation scenarios in order to show that trust and cohesion influence the coordination with the team and the team performance. Furthermore, Bell (2007) demonstrated in her meta-analysis that the relationship between team members' attitudes and the team's performance was proven more strongly in the field compared to the laboratory. In consideration of this fact, the findings of the present study concerning CO are remarkable and the simulation based microworld C3Fire ( Granlund et al., 2001 ; Granlund, 2003 ) seems to be appropriate for analyzing complex problem solving in interdependently working teams.

An asset of the present study is, that the teams' action processes, the coordination performance, was assessed objectively based on logged data and was not a subjective measure, as is often the case in group and team research studies (cf. Van de Ven et al., 1976 ; Antoni and Hertel, 2009 ; Dierdorff et al., 2011 ; Ellington and Dierdorff, 2014 ). As coordination was the mediator in the analysis, this objective measurement supports the validity of the results.

As no transition processes such as mission analysis, formulation, and planning ( Prince and Salas, 1993 ), goal specification ( Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ), and strategy formulation ( Prince and Salas, 1993 ; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) as well as action processes such as monitoring progress toward goals ( Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995 ) and systems monitoring ( Fleishman and Zaccaro, 1992 ) were analyzed within the present study, future studies should collect data concerning these processes in order to show their importance on performance within complex problem solving teams. Because these processes are difficult to observe, subjective measurements are needed, for example asking the participants after each scenario how they have prioritized various tasks, if and when they have changed their strategy concerning protecting houses or fighting fires, and on which data within the scenarios they focused for collecting information for goal and systems monitoring. Another possibility could be using eye-tracking methods in order to collect data about collecting information for monitoring progress toward goals, e.g., collecting information how many cells are still burning, and systems monitoring, e.g., tracking team resources like water for firefighting.

CO is an emergent state and emergent states can be influenced by experience or learning, for example ( Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006 ). Learning processes ( Edmondson, 1999 ), that Schmutz et al. (2016) added to the taxonomy of team processes developed by Marks et al. (2001) and which occur during transition and action phases and contribute to team effectiveness include e.g., feedback . Feedback can be useful for team learning when team learning is seen as a form of information processing ( Hinsz et al., 1997 ). Because CO supports action processes, such as coordination and it can be influenced by learning, learning opportunities, such as feedback, seem to be important for successful task accomplishment and for supporting teams in handling complex situations or problems. If the team is temporarily and interpersonally unstable, as it is the case for most of the disaster or crisis management teams dealing with complex problems, there might be less opportunities for generating shared mental models by experiencing repetitive cycles of joint action (cf. Figure 2 ) and strategies such as cross training ( Salas et al., 2007 ) or feedback might become more and more important for successful complex problem solving in teams. Thus, for future research it would be of interest to analyze what kind of feedback is able to influence CO positively and therefore is able to enhance coordination and performance within complex problem-solving teams.

Depending on the type of feedback, different main points will be focused during the feedback (see Gabelica et al., 2012 ). Feedback can be differentiated into performance and process feedback. Process feedback can be further divided into task-related and interpersonal feedback. Besides these aspects, feedback can be given on a team-level or an individual-level. Combinations of the various kinds of feedback are possible and are analyzed in research concerning their influence on e.g., self- and team-regulatory processes and team performance ( Prussia and Kinicki, 1996 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ; Jung and Sosik, 2003 ; Gabelica et al., 2012 ). For future studies it would be relevant to analyze, whether it is possible to positively influence the CO of team members and therefore action processes such as coordination and team performance or not. A focus could be on the learning processes, especially on feedback, and its influence on CO in complex problem solving teams. So far, no studies exist that analyzed the relationship between feedback and a change in CO, even though researchers already discuss the possibility that team-level process feedback shifts attention processes on team actions and team learning ( McLeod et al., 1992 ; Hinsz et al., 1997 ). These results would be very helpful for training programs for fire service or police or medical teams working in complex environments and solving problems collaboratively, in order to support their team working and their performance.

In summary, the idealized teamwork process model is in combination with the transition, action, interpersonal and learning processes a good framework for analyzing the impact of teamwork competencies and teamwork processes in detail on team performance in complex environments. Overall, the framework offers further possibilities for investigating the influence of teamwork competencies on diverse processes and teamwork outcomes in complex problem solving teams than demonstrated here. The results of our study provide evidence of how CO influences complex problem solving teams and their performance. Accordingly, future researchers and practitioners would be well advised to find interventions how to influence CO and support interdependently working teams.

Ethics Statement

This study was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of Ethical guidelines of the German Association of Psychology, Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science with written informed consent from all subjects. All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by the Ethics committee of the University of Duisburg-Essen, Department of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive Science.

Author Contributions

VH and AK were responsible for the conception of the work and the study design. VH analyzed and interpreted the collected data. VH and AK drafted the manuscript. They approved it for publication and act as guarantors for the overall content.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730/full#supplementary-material

Antoni, C., and Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: implications for different types of teamwork. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 18, 253–266. doi: 10.1080/13594320802095502

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Arthur, W., Edwards, B., Bell, S., Villado, A., and Bennet, W. (2005). Team task analysis: identifying tasks and jobs that are team based. Hum. Factors 47, 654–669. doi: 10.1518/001872005774860087

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Badke-Schaub, P. (2008). Teamarbeit und Teamführung: Erfolgsfaktoren und sicheres Handeln. [Teamwork and Team leadership: Factors of success and reliable action], in Führung und Teamarbeit in kritischen Situationen [Leadership and teamwork in critical situations] eds C. Buerschaper and S. Starke (Frankfurt: Verlag für Polizeiwissenschaft), 3–19.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., and McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 989–1004. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 595–615. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595

Bower, G. H., and Hilgard, E. R. (1981). Theories of Learning . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Google Scholar

Bredenkamp, J. (1998). Lernen, Erinnern, Vergessen [Learning, Remembering, Forgetting]. München: C.H. Beck.

Brehmer, B. (1992). Dynamic decision-making: human control of complex systems. Acta Psychol. 81, 211–241. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(92)90019-A

Brehmer, B., and Dörner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 9, 171–184. doi: 10.1016/0747-5632(93)90005-D

Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers. Psychol. 46, 823–850. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb01571.x

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., and Converse, S. (1993). “Shared mental models in expert team decision making,” in Individual and Group Decision Making , ed N. J. Castellan (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 221–246.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., Salas, E., and Volpe, C. E. (1995). “Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements,” in Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , eds R. A. Guzzo and E. Salas and Associates (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass), 333–380.

DeChurch, L. A., and Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 32–53. doi: 10.1037/a0017328

Dierdorff, E. C., Bell, S. T., and Belohlav, J. A. (2011). The “power of we”: effects of psychological collectivism on team performance over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 247–262. doi: 10.1037/a0020929

CrossRef Full Text

Dörner, D. (1989/2003). Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen [The logic of failure. Strategic thinking in complex situations] 11th Edn . Reinbeck: rororo.

Dörner, D., Kreuzig, H. W., Reither, F., and Stäudel, T. (1983). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexität. Bern; Stuttgart; Wien: Verlag Hans Huber.

Driskell, J. E., and Salas, E. (1992). Collective behavior and team performance. Hum. Factors 34, 277–288. doi: 10.1177/001872089203400303

Driskell, J., Salas, E., and Hughes, S. (2010). Collective orientation and team performance: development of an individual differences measure. Hum. Factors 52, 316–328. doi: 10.1177/0018720809359522

Eby, L. T., and Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 18, 275–295. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199705)18:3<275::AID-JOB796>3.0.CO;2-C

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 350–383. doi: 10.2307/2666999

Ellington, J. K., and Dierdorff, E. C. (2014). Individual learning in team training: self-regulation and team context effects. Small Group Res. 45, 37–67. doi: 10.1177/1046496413511670

Endsley, M. R. (1999). “Situation Awareness in Aviation Systems,” in Handbook of Aviation Human Factors , eds D. J. Garland, J. A. Wise, and V. D. Hopkin (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 257–276.

Endsley, M. R., and Robertson, M. M. (2000). “Training for Situation Awareness in Individuals and Teams,” in Situation awareness Analysis and Measurement , eds M. R. Endsley and D. J. Garland (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 349–365.

Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M. A., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., Letsky, M., and Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Hum. Factors 52, 203–224. doi: 10.1177/0018720810369807

Fleishman, E. A., and Zaccaro, S. J. (1992). “Toward a taxonomy of team performance funtions,” in Teams: Their Training and Performance , eds R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Norwood, NJ: Ables), 31–56.

Flin, R., O'Connor, P., and Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the Sharp End. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Funke, J. (1995). “Experimental research on complex problem solving,” in Complex Problem Solving: The European Perspective eds P. A. Frensch and J. Funke (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 243–268.

Funke, J. (2001). Daynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Think. Reason. 7, 69–89. doi: 10.1080/13546780042000046

Funke, J. (2012). “Complex Problem Solving,” in Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning ed N. M. Seel (Heidelberg: Springer), 682–685.

Gabelica, C., van den Bossche, P., de Maeyer, S., Segers, M., and Gijselaers, W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learn. Instruct. 34, 86–96. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001

Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., Segers, M., and Gijselaers, W. (2012). Feedback, a powerful lever in teams: a review. Educ. Res. Rev. 7, 123–144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2011.11.003

Geister, S., Konradt, U., and Hertel, G. (2006). Effects of process feedback on motivation, satisfaction, and performance in virtual teams. Small Group Res. 37, 459–489. doi: 10.1177/1046496406292337

Gibson, C. B. (1999). Do they do what they believe they can? group efficacy and group effectiveness across tasks and cultures. Acad. Manag. J. 42, 138–152. doi: 10.2307/257089

Granlund, R. (2003). Monitoring experiences from command and control research with the C 3 Fire microworld. Cogn. Technol. Work 5, 183–190. doi: 10.1007/s10111-003-0129-8

Granlund, R., and Johansson, B. (2004). “Monitoring distributed collaboration in the C 3 Fire Microworld,” in Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation and Applications , eds G. Schiflett, L. R. Elliot, E. Salas, and M. D. Coovert (Aldershot: Ashgate), 37–48.

Granlund, R., Johansson, B., and Persson, M. (2001). “C3Fire a micro-world for collaboration training and investigations in the ROLF environment,” in Proceedings of 42nd Conference on Simulation and Modeling: Simulation in Theory and Practice (Porsgrunn).

Hackman, J. R. (1987). “The design of work teams,” in Handbook of Organizational Behavior ed J. W. Lorsch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall), 315–342.

Hagemann, V. (2011). Trainingsentwicklung für High Responsibility Teams [Training development for High Responsibility Teams] . Lengerich: Pabst Verlag.

Hagemann, V. (2017). Development of a German-language questionnaire to measure collective orientation as an individual attitude. Swiss J. Psychol. 76, 91–105. doi: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000198

Hagemann, V., Kluge, A., and Ritzmann, S. (2011). High responsibility teams - Eine systematische Analyse von Teamarbeitskontexten für einen effektiven Kompetenzerwerb [A systematic analysis of teamwork contexts for effective competence acquisition]. Psychologie des Alltagshandelns 4, 22–42. Available online at: http://www.allgemeine-psychologie.info/cms/images/stories/allgpsy_journal/Vol%204%20No%201/hagemann_kluge_ritzmann.pdf

Hagemann, V., Kluge, A., and Ritzmann, S. (2012). Flexibility under complexity: work contexts, task profiles and team processes of high responsibility teams. Empl. Relat. 34, 322–338. doi: 10.1108/01425451211217734

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., and Orlikowski, B. (2004). Managing distance by interdependence: goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams. Euro. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 13, 1–28. doi: 10.1080/13594320344000228

Hinsz, V., Tindale, R., and Vollrath, D. (1997). The emerging concept of groups as information processors. Psychol. Bull. 121, 43–64. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43

Hollingshead, A. B., Gupta, N., Yoon, K., and Brandon, D. (2012). “Transactive memory theory and teams: past, present, and future,” in Theories of Team Cognition , eds E. Salas, S. M. Fiore and M. Letsky (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group), 421–455.

Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., and Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 56, 517–543. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250

Jobidon, M.-E., Muller-Gass, A., Duncan, M., and Blais, A.-R. (2012). The enhance of mental models and its impact on teamwork. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 56, 1703–1707. doi: 10.1177/1071181312561341

Jung, D. I., and Sosik, J. J. (2003). Group potency and collective efficacy. Group Organ. Manage. 28, 366–391. doi: 10.1177/1059601102250821

Kluge, A. (2014). The Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills for Taskwork and Teamwork to Control Complex Technical Systems : A Cognitive and Macroergonomics Perspective . Dordrecht: Springer.

Kluge, A., Hagemann, V., and Ritzmann, S. (2014). “Military crew resource management – Das Streben nach der bestmöglichen Teamarbeit [Striving for the best of teamwork],” in Psychologie für Einsatz und Notfall [Psychology for mission and emergency] , eds G. Kreim, S. Bruns and B. Völker (Bonn: Bernard & Graefe in der Mönch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH), 141–152.

Kluge, A., Sauer, J., Schüler, K., and Burkolter, D. (2009). Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices, theoretical issues in ergonomics Science 10, 489–509. doi: 10.1080/14639220902982192

Kozlowski, S. W. J., and Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7, 77–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x

Lafond, D., Jobidon, M.-E., Aubé, C., and Tremblay, S. (2011). Evidence of structure- specific teamwork requirements and implications for team design. Small Group Res. 42, 507–535. doi: 10.1177/1046496410397617

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26, 356–376. doi: 10.2307/259182

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 273–283. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 24–59. doi: 10.2307/256727

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and Performance . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., and Berdahl, J. L. (2000). The study of groups: past, present, and future. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 4, 95–105. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_8

McLeod, P. L., Liker, J. K., and Lobel, S. A. (1992). Process feedback in task groups: an application of goal setting. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 28, 15–41. doi: 10.1177/0021886392281003

Morgan, B. B., Salas, E., and Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. J. Gen. Psychol. 120, 277–291. doi: 10.1080/00221309.1993.9711148

Ormerod, T. C., Richardson, J., and Shepherd, A. (1998). Enhancing the usability of a task analysis method: a notation and environment for requirements specification. Ergonomics 41, 1642–1663. doi: 10.1080/001401398186117

Preacher, K., and Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 36, 717–731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553

Prince, C., and Salas, E. (1993). “Training and research for teamwork in the military aircrew,” in Cockpit Resource Management , eds E. L. Wiener, B. G. Kanki, and R. L. Helmreich (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 337–366.

Prussia, G. E., and Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivation investigation of group effectiveness using social-cognitive theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 187–198. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.187

Riordan, C. M., and Weatherly, E. W. (1999). Defining and measuring employees‘identification with their work groups. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 59, 310–324. doi: 10.1177/00131649921969866

Roth, E. M., and Woods, D. D. (1988). Aiding human performance i: cognitive analysis. Trav. Hum. 51, 39–64.

Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., and Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments. Hum. Factors 50, 540–547. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288457

Salas, E., Nichols, D. R., and Driskell, J. E. (2007). Testing three team training strategies in intact teams. Small Group Res. 38, 471–488. doi: 10.1177/1046496407304332

Salas, E., Sims, D., and Burke, S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res. 36, 555–599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134

Schmutz, J., Welp, A., and Kolbe, M. (2016). “Teamwork in healtcare organizations,” in Management Innovations for Health Care Organizations , eds A. Örtenblad, C. A. Löfström and R. Sheaff (New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis), 359–377.

Serfaty, D., Entin, E. E., and Johnston, J. H. (1998). “Team coordination training,” in Making Decisions Under Stress , eds J. A. Cannon-Bowers and E. Salas (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 221–246.

Shea, G. P., and Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Group effectiveness: what really matters? Sloan Manage. Rev. 28, 25–31.

Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Baker, D. P., Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). “Uncovering differences in team competency requirements: The case of air traffic control teams,” in Improving Teamwork in Organizations. Applications of Resource Management Training , eds E. Salas, C. A. Bowers, and E. Edens (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers), 31–54.

Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., and Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 814–828. doi: 10.1037/a0015659

Stevens, M. J., and Campion, M. A. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: implications for human resource management. J. Manage. 20, 503–530. doi: 10.1177/014920639402000210

Ulich, E. (1995). “Gestaltung von Arbeitstätigkeiten [Designing job tasks],” in Lehrbuch Organisationspsychologie [Schoolbook Organizational Psychology] , ed H. Schuler (Bern: Huber), 189–208.

Van de Ven, A. H., Delbecq, A. L., and Koenig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes with organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 41, 322–338. doi: 10.2307/2094477

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Adm. Sci. Q. 40, 145–180. doi: 10.2307/2393703

Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., and Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Manage. Sci. 50, 1534–1544. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210

Wilson, K. A., Salas, E., and Andrews, D. H. (2010). “Preventing errors in the heat of the battle: formal and informal learning strategies to prevent teamwork breakdowns,” in Human Factors Issues in Combat Identification , eds D. H. Andrews, R. P. Herz, and M. B. Wolf (Aldershot: Ashgate), 1–28.

Zsambok, C. E. (1997). “Naturalistic decision making: where are we now?,” in Naturalistic Decision Making , eds C. E. Zsambok and G. Klein (New York, NY: Routledge), 3–16.

Keywords: interdependence, team processes, complex problem solving, collective orientation, trust, cohesion, C3Fire, microworld

Citation: Hagemann V and Kluge A (2017) Complex Problem Solving in Teams: The Impact of Collective Orientation on Team Process Demands. Front. Psychol . 8:1730. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01730

Received: 04 May 2017; Accepted: 19 September 2017; Published: 29 September 2017.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2017 Hagemann and Kluge. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Vera Hagemann, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1964.15.3.939
• Corpus ID: 144026636

Problem Solving: Response Competition and the Influence of Drive

• S. Glucksberg
• Published 1 December 1964
• Psychological Reports

Tables from this paper

34 Citations

Asymmetric transfer between the remote associates test and functional fixedness, problem solving and functional fixedness: a comparison between eco-reps and non eco-reps, social influences on creativity: interactive effects, social influences on creativity: the effects of contracted-for reward., do performance-contingent incentives help or hinder divergent thinking, when experiences of failure promote expectations of success: the impact of attribution failure to ineffective strategies1, a desire to be taught: instructional consequences of intrinsic motivation, the interplay of prior experience and motivation in great ape problem-solving (gorilla gorilla,pan paniscus, pan troglodytes, and pongo abelii), rewards and creativity, constraints and creativity at the workplace: the role of constructive non-compliance, 5 references, the effects of violations of assumptions underlying the test., the influence of strength of drive on functional fixedness and perceptual recognition., on problem-solving, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

A Dual-state Model of Creative Cognition for Supporting Strategies that Foster Creativity in the Classroom

• Published: October 2002
• Volume 12 , pages 215–226, ( 2002 )

Cite this article

• Paul A. Howard-Jones  

1232 Accesses

60 Citations

Explore all metrics

The generative thought processes that give rise to original ideas appear to be very different to those analytical thought processes required to refine them. Thus, design and technology provides a unique challenge to the teacher, since he/she must be able to support and encourage both types of thinking in the classroom. A review of the psychological and educational literature suggests an integrated 2-process model of thinking can be applied to provide a clearer indication of when and how different teaching strategies may be effective. Such a model reconciles apparent contradictions in the literature, offers a better understanding of the pragmatic strategies already used by teachers and helps suggest new strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Creative Synthesis: Combining the 4C and Systems Models of Creativity

Creative Thinking: Designed for Humans

Domain Generality and Specificity in Creative Design Thinking

Amabile, T. M.: 1996, The Social Psychology of Creativity , Springer-Verlag, New York.

Google Scholar  

Barron, F.: 1955, ‘The Disposition Toward Originality’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 5 1, 478–485.

Article   Google Scholar  

Calvin, W. H.: 1996, ‘How Brains Think: Evolving Intelligence, Then and Now’, The Science Masters Series , Basic Books, New York, US.

Campbell, D. T.: 1960 ‘Blind Variation and Selective Retention on Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes’, Psychological Review 67 , 380–400.

Cropley, A. J.: 1997, ‘Fostering Creativity in the Classroom: General Principles’, in M. A. Runco (ed.), Creativity Research Handbook , Volume 1, Hampton Press, Creskill, NJ, 83–114.

DATA: 1996, The Design and Technology Co-ordinators File , Design and Technology Association, Wellesbourne, UK.

Deci, E. & Ryan, R.: 1985, Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior , Plenum, New York.

Department for Education: 1995, Design and Technology in the National Curriculum , HMSO, London.

Diehl, M. & Stroebe, W.: 1987, ‘Productivity Loss in Brainstorming Groups: Towards the Solution of a Riddle’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (3), 497–509.

Eisenberger, R. & Selbst, M.: 1994, ‘Does Reward Increase or Decrease Creativity?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 , 1116–1127.

Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M.: 1992, Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications , MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Forgays, D. G. & Forgays, D. K.: 1992, ‘Creativity Enhancement Through Flotation Isolation’, Journal of Environmental Psychology 12 , 329–335.

Fritz, A.: 1998, ‘Creativity-from Philosophy to Practice’, in J. S. Smith and E. W. L. Norman (eds.), Proceedings of International Conference on Design and Technology Education Research and Practice , Loughborough University: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough.

Glucksberg, S.: 1962, ‘The Influence of Strength of Drive on Functional Fixedness and Perceptual Recognition’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 63 , 36–41.

Glucksberg, S.: 1964, ‘Problem-solving: Response Competition and the Influence of Drive’, Psychological Reports 15 , 939–942.

Gordon, W.: 1961, Syntectics: The Development of Creative Capacity , Harper and Row, New York.

Greenberg, E.: 1992, ‘Creativity, Autonomy, and Evaluation of Creative Work: Artistic Workers in Organisations’, Journal of Creative Behavior 26 , 75–80.

Hennessey, B. A. & Zbikowski, S. M.: 1993, ‘Immunizing Children Against the Negative Effects of Reward: A Further Examination of Intrinsic Motivation Training Techniques’, Creativity Research Journal 6 (3), 297–307.

Howard-Jones, P. A.: 1998, ‘The Measurement of Ideational Productivity Over Short Time-Scales and the Effect of a Strategy to Defocus Attention’, Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , Wisconsin University, USA.

Howard-Jones, P. A.: 1999, ‘Do Creative Individuals Produce a Steadier Stream of Ideas?’, Proceedings of the 4th European Learning Styles Information Network , University of Central Lancashire, UK, 303–312.

Howard-Jones, P. A. and Murray, S.: accepted , ‘Ideational Productivity, Focus of Attention and Context’, Creativity Research Journal .

Hoppe, K. D. & Kyle, N. L.: 1990 ‘Dual Brain, Creativity and Health’, Creativity Research Journal 3 (2), 150–157.

Jansson, D. G. & Smith, S. M.: 1991, ‘Design Fixation’, Design Studies 12 , 3–11.

Johnsey, R.: 1995 ‘The Design Process – Does It Exist?’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5 , 199–217.

Kantorovich, A.: 1993, Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering, State Univ. of New York Press, Albany, New York.

Kris, E.: 1952, Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art , International Universities Press, New York.

Kruglanksi, A. W., Friedman, I. & Zeevi, G.: 1971, ‘The Effects of Extrinsic Incentive on Some Qualitative Aspects of Task Performance’, Journal of Personality 39 , 606–617.

Lewis, T: 1999, ‘Research in Technology Education: Some Areas of Need’, Journal of Technology Education 10 (2), 41–56.

Liu, Y. T.: 1998, ‘Personal Versus Cultural Cognitive Models of Design Creativity’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 8 (2), 185–195.

Maier, N. R. F.: 1931, ‘Reasoning in Humans’, Journal of Comparative Psychology 12 , 181–194.

Martindale, C.: 1995, ‘Creativity and Connectionism’, in S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward & R. A. Finke (eds.), The Creative Cognition Approach , MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Martindale, C. & Hines, D.: 1975, ‘Creativity and Cortical Activation During Creative, Intellectual, and EEG Feedback Tasks’, Biological Psychology 3 , 71–80.

McGraw, K. & McCullers, J.: 1979, ‘Evidence of a Detrimental Effect of Extrinsic Incentives on Breaking Mental Set’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15 , 285–294.

Mednick, S. A.: 1962, ‘The Associative Basis of the Creative Process’, Psychological Review 69 , 220–232.

Osche, R.: 1990, Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Osborn, A.: 1953, Applied Imagination , Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.

Puk, T.: 1995, ‘Creating a Quantum Design Schema: Integrating Extra-Rational and Rational Learning Processes’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education 5 , 255–266.

Robinson, K. (ed.): 1999, ‘All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education’, Report fromthe National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education , Department for Education and Employment, London.

Seger, C. A., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H. & Gabrieli, J. D. E.: 2000, ‘Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evidence for Right-hemisphere Involvement in Processing of Unusual Semantic Relationships’, Neuropsychology 14 (3), 361–369.

Simonton, D. K.: 1997, ‘Creative Productivity: A Predictive and Explanatory Model of Career Trajectories and Landmarks’, Psychological Review 104 (1), 66–89.

Soh, K. C.: 2000, ‘Indexing Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior: A Preliminary Validation Study’, Journal of Creative Behavior 34 (2), 118–134.

Stein, M. I.: 1953, ‘Creativity and Culture’, Journal of Psychology 36 , 311–322.

Szymanski, K. & S. G. Harkins, 1992: ‘Self-evaluation and Creativity’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18 , 259–265.

Wallas, G.: 1926, The Art of Thought , Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.

Werner, H.: 1948, Comparative Psychology of Mental Development , International Universities Press, New York.

Wu, T. F., Custer, R. L. & Dyrenfurth, M. J.: 1996, ‘Technological and Personal Problem Solving Styles: Is there a Difference?’, Journal of Technology Education 7 (2). Electronically published article on the Internet: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/jte-v7n2/ wu.jte-v7n2.html.

Wundt, W.: 1896, Lectures on Human and Animal Psychology , MacMillan, New York.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Howard-Jones, P.A. A Dual-state Model of Creative Cognition for Supporting Strategies that Foster Creativity in the Classroom. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 12 , 215–226 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020243429353

Download citation

Issue Date : October 2002

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020243429353

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• design process
• self-evaluation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Advanced Search
• All new items
• Journal articles
• Manuscripts
• All Categories
• Metaphysics and Epistemology
• Epistemology
• Metaphilosophy
• Metaphysics
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Religion
• Value Theory
• Applied Ethics
• Meta-Ethics
• Normative Ethics
• Philosophy of Gender, Race, and Sexuality
• Philosophy of Law
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Value Theory, Miscellaneous
• Science, Logic, and Mathematics
• Logic and Philosophy of Logic
• Philosophy of Biology
• Philosophy of Cognitive Science
• Philosophy of Computing and Information
• Philosophy of Mathematics
• Philosophy of Physical Science
• Philosophy of Social Science
• Philosophy of Probability
• General Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Science, Misc
• History of Western Philosophy
• Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy
• Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy
• 17th/18th Century Philosophy
• 19th Century Philosophy
• 20th Century Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophical Traditions
• African/Africana Philosophy
• Asian Philosophy
• Continental Philosophy
• European Philosophy
• Philosophy of the Americas
• Philosophical Traditions, Miscellaneous
• Philosophy, Misc
• Philosophy, Introductions and Anthologies
• Philosophy, General Works
• Teaching Philosophy
• Philosophy, Miscellaneous
• Other Academic Areas
• Natural Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences
• Formal Sciences
• Arts and Humanities
• Professional Areas
• Other Academic Areas, Misc
• Submit a book or article
• Upload a bibliography
• Personal page tracking
• Archives we track
• Information for publishers
• Introduction
• Submitting to PhilPapers
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Subscriptions
• Editor's Guide
• The Categorization Project
• For Publishers
• For Archive Admins
• PhilPapers Surveys
• Bargain Finder
• About PhilPapers
• Create an account

The influence of strength of drive on functional fixedness and perceptual recognition

Reprint years, philarchive, external links.

• From the Publisher via CrossRef (no proxy)

Through your library

• Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
• Configure custom resolver

Similar books and articles

Citations of this work, references found in this work.

No references found.

20 Leadership

Content in this chapter comes from openstax.

After reading this chapter, you should be able to answer these questions:

• What is the nature of leadership and the leadership process?
• What are the processes associated with people coming to leadership positions?
• How do leaders influence and move their followers to action?
• What are the trait perspectives on leadership?
• What are the behavioral perspectives on leadership?
• What are the situational perspectives on leadership?
• What does the concept “substitute for leadership” mean?
• What are the characteristics of transactional, transformational, and charismatic leadership?
• How do different approaches and styles of leadership impact what is needed now?

EXPLORING MANAGERIAL CAREERS

John Arroyo: Springfield Sea Lions

John Arroyo is thrilled with his new position as general manager of the Springfield Sea Lions, a minor league baseball team in. Arroyo has been a baseball fan all of his life, and now his diligent work and his degree in sports management are paying off.

Arroyo knew he had a hard act to follow. The general manager whom John replaced, “T.J.” Grevin, was a much-loved old-timer who had been with the Sea Lions since their inception 14 years ago. John knew it would be difficult for whoever followed T.J., but he didn’t realize how ostracized and powerless he would feel. He tried a pep talk: “I’m the general manager—the CEO of this ball club! In time, the staff  will  respect me.” [Not a very good pep talk!]

After his first season ends, Arroyo is discouraged. Ticket and concession sales are down, and some long-time employees are rumored to be thinking about leaving. If John doesn’t turn things around, he knows his tenure with the Sea Lions will be short.

Questions:  Is John correct in assuming that the staff will learn to respect him in time? What can John do to earn the loyalty of his staff and improve the ball club’s performance?

Outcomes:  During the winter, John thinks long and hard about how he can earn the respect of the Sea Lions staff. Before the next season opener, John announces his plan: “So I can better understand what your day is like, I’m going to spend one day in each of your shoes. I’m trading places with each of you. I will be a ticket taker, a roving hot dog vendor, and a janitor. And I will be a marketer, and an accountant—for a day. You in turn will have the day off so you can enjoy the game from the general manager’s box.” The staff laughs and whistles appreciatively. Then the Springfield mascot, Sparky the Sea Lion, speaks up: “Hey Mr. Arroyo, are you going to spend a day in my flippers?” “You bet!” says John, laughing. The entire staff cheers.

John continues. “At the close of the season, we will honor a staff member with the T.J. Grevin Award for outstanding contributions to the Sea Lions organization. T.J. was such a great guy, it’s only right that we honor him.” The meeting ends, but John’s staff linger to tell him how excited they are about his ideas. Amidst the handshakes, he hopes that this year may be the best year yet for the Sea Lions.

Sarah Elizabeth Roisland is the manager of a district claims office for a large insurance company. Fourteen people work for her. The results of a recent attitude survey indicate that her employees have extremely high job satisfaction and motivation. Conflict is rare in Sarah’s office. Furthermore, productivity measures place her group among the most productive in the entire company. Her success has brought the company’s vice president of human resources to her office in an attempt to discover the secret to her success. Sarah’s peers, superiors, and workers all give the same answer: she is more than a good manager—she is an outstanding leader. She continually gets high performance from her employees and does so in such a way that they enjoy working for her.

There is no magic formula for becoming a good leader. There are, however, many identifiable reasons why some people are better and more effective leaders. Leaders, especially effective leaders, are not created by simply attending a one-day leadership workshop. Yet effective leadership skills are not something most people are born with. You can become an effective leader if you are willing to invest the time and energy to develop all of the “right stuff.”

According to Louise Axon, director of content strategy, and her colleagues at Harvard Business Publishing, in seeking management talent,  leadership  is an urgently needed quality in all managerial roles. 1  Good leaders and good leadership are rare. Harvard management professor John P. Kotter notes that “there is a leadership crisis in the U.S. today,” 2  and the late USC Professor Warren Bennis states that many of our organizations are overmanaged and underled. 3

The Nature of Leadership

The many definitions of leadership each have a different emphasis. Some definitions consider leadership an act or behavior, such as initiating structure so group members know how to complete a task. Others consider a leader to be the center or nucleus of group activity, an instrument of goal achievement who has a certain personality, a form of persuasion and power, and the art of inducing compliance. 4  Some look at leadership in terms of the management of group processes. In this view, a good leader develops a vision for the group, communicates that vision, 5  orchestrates the group’s energy and activity toward goal attainment, “[turns] a group of individuals into a team,” and “[transforms] good intentions into positive actions.” 6

Leadership  is frequently defined as a social (interpersonal) influence relationship between two or more persons who depend on each other to attain certain mutual goals in a group situation. 7  Effective leadership helps individuals and groups achieve their goals by focusing on the group’s  maintenance needs  (the need for individuals to fit and work together by having, for example, shared norms) and  task needs  (the need for the group to make progress toward attaining the goal that brought them together).

Leader versus Manager

The two dual concepts, leader and manager, leadership and management, are not interchangeable, nor are they redundant. The differences between the two can, however, be confusing. In many instances, to be a good manager one needs to be an effective leader. Many CEOs have been hired in the hope that their leadership skills, their ability to formulate a vision and get others to “buy into” that vision, will propel the organization forward. In addition, effective leadership often necessitates the ability to manage—to set goals; plan, devise, and implement strategy; make decisions and solve problems; and organize and control. For our purposes, the two sets of concepts can be contrasted in several ways.

First, we define the two concepts differently. In  Management and Organizational Behavior , we defined management as a process consisting of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. Here we define leadership as a social (interpersonal) influence relationship between two or more people who are dependent on each another for goal attainment.

Second, managers and leaders are commonly differentiated in terms of the processes through which they initially come to their position. Managers are generally appointed to their role. Even though many organizations appoint people to positions of leadership, leadership per se is a relationship that revolves around the followers’ acceptance or rejection of the leader. 8  Thus, leaders often emerge out of events that unfold among members of a group.

Third, managers and leaders often differ in terms of the types and sources of the power they exercise. Managers commonly derive their power from the larger organization. Virtually all organizations legitimize the use of certain “carrots and sticks” (rewards and punishments) as ways of securing the compliance of their employees. In other words, by virtue of the position that a manager occupies (president, vice president, department head, supervisor), certain “rights to act” (schedule production, contract to sell a product, hire and fire) accompany the position and its place within the hierarchy of authority. Leaders can also secure power and the ability to exercise influence using carrots and sticks; however, it is much more common for leaders to derive power from followers’ perception of their knowledge (expertise), their personality and attractiveness, and the working relationship that has developed between leaders and followers.

From the perspective of those who are under the leader’s and manager’s influence, the motivation to comply often has a different base. The subordinate to a manager frequently complies because of the role authority of the manager, and because of the carrots and sticks that managers have at their disposal. The followers of a leader comply because they want to. Thus, leaders motivate primarily through intrinsic processes, while managers motivate primarily through extrinsic processes.

Finally, it is important to note that while managers may be successful in directing and supervising their subordinates, they often succeed or fail because of their ability or inability to lead. 9  As noted above, effective leadership often calls for the ability to manage, and effective management often requires leadership.

CONCEPT CHECK

The Leadership Process

Leadership is a process, a complex and dynamic exchange relationship built over time between leader and follower and between leader and the group of followers who depend on each other to attain a mutually desired goal. 10  There are several key components to this “working relationship”: the leader, the followers, the context (situation), the leadership process per se, and the consequences (outcomes) (see  Figure 3 ). 11  Across time, each component interacts with and influences the other components, and whatever consequences (such as leader-follower trust) are created influence future interactions. As any one of the components changes, so too will leadership. 12

Leaders are people who take charge of or guide the activities of others. They are often seen as the focus or orchestrater of group activity, the people who set the tone of the group so that it can move forward to attain its goals. Leaders provide the group with what is required to fulfill its maintenance and task-related needs. (Later in the chapter, we will return to the “leader as a person” as part of our discussion of the trait approach to leadership.)

The Context

Situations make demands on a group and its members, and not all situations are the same. Context refers to the situation that surrounds the leader and the followers. Situations are multidimensional. We discuss the context as it pertains to leadership in greater detail later in this chapter, but for now let’s look at it in terms of the task and task environment that confront the group. Is the task structured or unstructured? Are the goals of the group clear or ambiguous? Is there agreement or disagreement about goals? Is there a body of knowledge that can guide task performance? Is the task boring? Frustrating? Intrinsically satisfying? Is the environment complex or simple, stable or unstable? These factors create different contexts within which leadership unfolds, and each factor places a different set of needs and demands on the leader and on the followers.

The Process

The process of leadership is separate and distinct from the leader (the person who occupies a central role in the group). The process is a complex, interactive, and dynamic working relationship between leader and followers. This working relationship, built over time, is directed toward fulfilling the group’s maintenance and task needs. Part of the process consists of an exchange relationship between the leader and follower. The leader provides a resource directed toward fulfilling the group’s needs, and the group gives compliance, recognition, and esteem to the leader. To the extent that leadership is the exercise of influence, part of the leadership process is captured by the surrender of power by the followers and the exercise of influence over the followers by the leader. 19  Thus, the leader influences the followers and the followers influence the leader, the context influences the leader and the followers, and both leader and followers influence the context.

The Consequences

A number of outcomes or consequences of the leadership process unfold between leader, follower, and situation. At the group level, two outcomes are important:

• Have the group’s maintenance needs been fulfilled? That is, do members of the group like and get along with one another, do they have a shared set of norms and values, and have they developed a good working relationship? Have individuals’ needs been fulfilled as reflected in attendance, motivation, performance, satisfaction, citizenship, trust, and maintenance of the group membership?
• Have the group’s task needs been met? That is, there are also important consequences of the leadership process for individuals: attendance, motivation, performance, satisfaction, citizenship, trust, and maintenance of their group membership.

The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of the leadership process focuses attention on consequences associated with the leadership process. The theory views leadership as consisting of a number of dyadic relationships linking the leader with a follower. A leader-follower relationship tends to develop quickly and remains relatively stable over time. The quality of the relationship is reflected by the degree of mutual trust, loyalty, support, respect, and obligation. High- and low-quality relationships between a leader and each of his followers produce in and out groups among the followers. Members of the in group come to be key players, and high-quality exchange relationships tend to be associated with higher levels of performance, commitment, and satisfaction than are low-quality exchange relationships. 20  Attitudinal similarity and extroversion appear to be associated with a high-quality leader-member relationship. 21

The nature of the leadership process varies substantially depending on the leader, the followers, and the situation and context. Thus, leadership is the function of an interaction between the leader, the follower, and the context.

The leadership context for the leader of a group of assembly line production workers differs from the context for the leader of a self-managing production team and from the context confronted by the lead scientists in a research laboratory. The leadership tactics that work in the first context might fail miserably in the latter two.

CATCHING THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT

How a Start-Up Finds the Right Leader

Start-ups, by their very nature, require innovation to bring new products and services to market. Along with establishing a new brand or product, the leader has to develop the relationships and processes that make a company succeed, or risk its early demise. While leading an established firm has its challenges, a start-up requires even more from a leader.

How critical is leadership to a start-up? Ask the four cofounders of the now-defunct PYP (Pretty Young Professionals), a website founded as a source of information for young professional women. What began as four young professional women working on a new start-up ended with hurt feelings and threats of legal action. In 2010, Kathryn Minshew, Amanda Pouchot, Caroline Ghosn, and Alex Cavoulacos decided to create the website and Minshew was named CEO (Cohan 2011a). Lines blurred about Minshew’s authority and the ultimate look, feel, and direction of the website. Ideals about shared leadership, where the company was going, and how it was going to get there ultimately got lost in the power shuffle. By June 2011, passwords were changed and legal actions began, and in August Minshew and Cavoulacos left altogether (Cohan 2011b).

When the legal haggling from PYP was over, Alex Cavoulacos and Kathryn Minshew, joined by Melissa McCreery, tried again. But this time, rather than hoping for the best, they put a leadership plan in place. Minshew was named CEO of the new start-up, The Daily Muse, with Cavoulacos as chief operating officer and McCreery as editor in chief. Rather than trusting to luck, the three cofounders based their team positions on strengths and personalities. Cavoulacos and McCreery agreed that Minshew’s outgoing personality and confidence made her the proper choice as CEO (Casserly 2013).

No single trait will guarantee that a person can lead a start-up from idea to greatness, but a survey of successful entrepreneurs does show some common traits. According to David Barbash, a partner at Boston-based law firm Posternak Blankstein & Lund LLP, personality is paramount: “You can have great technology but if you’re not a great communicator it may die in the lab” (Casserly 2013 n.p.). A start-up needs a leader who is confident and willing, if not eager, to face the future. According to Michelle Randall, a principal of Enriching Leadership International, start-up CEOs have to be willing to fundraise and not be too proud to beg (Casserly 2013). Peter Shankman, an entrepreneur and angel investor, says leaders have to be willing to make the hard decisions, even risking being the bad guy (Casserly 2013).

Gary Vaynerchuk credits his success to six factors. Angel investor, social media marketer, and early social media adopter, Vaynerchuk leveraged YouTube in its early years to market wine from the family’s liquor store, eventually increasing sales from $3 million to $60 million a year (Clifford 2017). Gary believes good leaders recognize that they don’t dictate to the market, but rather respond to where it is going. They have respect for and believe in other people, and have a strong work ethic, what Vaynerchuk called a “lunch pail work ethic”: they are willing to put in long hours because they love the work, not the perks. He also stresses that he loves technology and doesn’t fear it, is obsessed with the youth of today, and is optimistic about people and the future of humanity (Vaynerchuk 2017).

Leading a startup requires more than simple management. It requires the right leader for the right company at the right time, which means matching the right management skills with the proper flexibility and drive to keep it all together and moving in the right direction.

Why would start-up leaders need different leadership qualities than someone managing an established firm?

Leader Emergence

Leaders hold a unique position in their groups, exercising influence and providing direction. Leonard Bernstein was part of the symphony, but his role as the New York Philharmonic conductor differed dramatically from that of the other symphony members. Besides conducting the orchestra, he created a vision for the symphony. In this capacity, leadership can be seen as a differentiated role and the nucleus of group activity.

Organizations have two kinds of leaders: formal and informal. A  formal leader  is that individual who is recognized by those outside the group as the official leader of the group. Often, the formal leader is appointed by the organization to serve in a formal capacity as an agent of the organization. Jack Welch was the formal leader of General Electric, and Leonard Bernstein was the formal leader of the symphony. Practically all managers act as formal leaders as part of their assigned role. Organizations that use self-managed work teams allow members of the team to select the individual who will serve as their team leader. When this person’s role is sanctioned by the formal organization, these team leaders become formal leaders. Increasingly, leaders in organizations will be those who “best sell” their ideas on how to complete a project—persuasiveness and inspiration are important ingredients in the leadership equation, especially in high-involvement organizations. 22

Informal leaders, by contrast, are not assigned by the organization. The  informal leader  is that individual whom members of the group acknowledge as their leader. Athletic teams often have informal leaders, individuals who exert considerable influence on team members even though they hold no official, formal leadership position. In fact, most work groups contain at least one informal leader. Just like formal leaders, informal leaders can benefit or harm an organization depending on whether their influence encourages group members to behave consistently with organizational goals.

As we have noted, the terms  leader  and  manager  are not synonymous. Grace Hopper, retired U.S. Navy admiral, draws a distinction between leading and managing: “You don’t manage people, you manage  things . You lead  people .” 23  Informal leaders often have considerable leverage over their colleagues. Traditionally, the roles of informal leaders have not included the total set of management responsibilities because an informal leader does not always exercise the functions of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling. However, high-involvement organizations frequently encourage their formal and informal leaders to exercise the full set of management roles. Many consider such actions necessary for self-managing work teams to succeed. Informal leaders are acknowledged by the group, and the group willingly responds to their leadership.

Paths to Leadership

People come to leadership positions through two dynamics. In many instances, people are put into positions of leadership by forces outside the group. University-based ROTC programs and military academies (like West Point) formally groom people to be leaders. We refer to this person as the  designated leader  (in this instance the designated and formal leader are the same person).  Emergent leaders , on the other hand, arise from the dynamics and processes that unfold within and among a group of individuals as they endeavor to achieve a collective goal.

A variety of processes help us understand how leaders emerge. Gerald Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer observe that power to influence others flows to those individuals who possess the critical and scarce resources (often knowledge and expertise) that a group needs to overcome a major problem. 24  They note that the dominant coalition and leadership in American corporations during the 1950s was among engineers, because organizations were engaged in competition based on product design. The power base in many organizations shifted to marketing as competition became a game of advertising aimed at differentiating products in the consumer’s mind. About 10–15 years ago, power and leadership once again shifted, this time to people with finance and legal backgrounds, because the critical contingencies facing many organizations were mergers, acquisitions, hostile takeovers, and creative financing. Thus, Salancik and Pfeffer reason that power and thus leadership flow to those individuals who have the ability to help an organization or group [overcome its critical contingencies]. As the challenges facing a group change, so too may the flow of power and leadership.

Many leaders emerge out of the needs of the situation. Different situations call for different configurations of knowledge, skills, and abilities. A group often turns to the member who possesses the knowledge, skills, and abilities that the group requires to achieve its goals. 25  People surrender their power to individuals whom they believe will make meaningful contributions to attaining group goals. 26 The individual to whom power is surrendered is often a member of the group who is in good standing. As a result of this member’s contributions to the group’s goals, he has accumulated  idiosyncrasy credits  (a form of competency-based status). These credits give the individual a status that allows him to influence the direction that the group takes as it works to achieve its goals. 27

It is important to recognize that the traits possessed by certain individuals contribute significantly to their emergence as leaders. Research indicates that people are unlikely to follow individuals who, for example, do not display drive, self-confidence, knowledge of the situation, honesty, and integrity.

Leadership as an Exercise of Influence

As we have noted, leadership is the exercise of influence over those who depend on one another for attaining a mutual goal in a group setting. But  how  do leaders effectively exercise this influence?  Social or (interpersonal) influence  is one’s ability to effect a change in the motivation, attitudes, and/or behaviors of others.  Power , then, essentially answers the “how” question: How do leaders influence their followers? The answer often is that a leader’s social influence is the source of his power.

French and Raven provide us with a useful typology that identifies the sources and types of power. As a review those types of power are  reward power, coercive power, referent power, expert power,  and  legitimate power. 28

As you know, not all forms of power are equally effective (see Figure 5 ), nor is a leader’s total power base the simple sum of the powers at his disposal. Different types of power elicit different forms of compliance: Leaders who rely on coercive power often alienate followers who resist their influence attempts. Leaders who rely on reward power develop followers who are very measured in their responses to [what?]; the use of rewards often leads people to think in terms of “How much am I getting?” or “How much should I give?” or “Am I breaking even?” The use of referent power produces identification with the leader and his cause. The use of rationality, expert power, and/or moralistic appeal generally elicits commitment and the internalization of the leader’s goals. 29

Leaders who use referent and expert power commonly experience a favorable response in terms of follower satisfaction and performance. Research suggests that rationality is the most effective influence tactic in terms of its impact on follower commitment, motivation, performance, satisfaction, and group effectiveness. 30

Reward and legitimate power (that is, relying on one’s position to influence others) produce inconsistent results. Sometimes these powers lead to follower performance and satisfaction, yet they also sometimes fail. Coercive power can result in favorable performance, yet follower and resistance dissatisfaction are not uncommon.

Good leaders, whether formal or informal, develop many sources of power. Leaders who rely solely on their legitimate power and authority seldom generate the influence necessary to help their organization and its members succeed. In the process of building their power base, effective leaders have discovered that the use of coercive power tends to dilute the effectiveness of other powers, while the development and use of referent power tends to magnify the effectiveness of other forms of power. A compliment or reward from a person we like generally has greater value than one from someone we dislike, and punishment from someone we love (such as “tough love” from a parent) is less offensive than the pain inflicted by someone we dislike. 31

In sum, one key to effective leadership, especially as it pertains to the exercise of social and interpersonal influence, relates to the type of power employed by the leader. Overall leader effectiveness will be higher when people follow because they want to follow. This is much more likely to happen when the leader’s influence flows out of intrinsic such as rationality, expertise, moralistic appeal, and/or referent power.

Leadership is also about having a vision and communicating that vision to others in such a way that it provides meaning for the follower. 32  Language, ritual, drama, myths, symbolic constructions, and stories are some of the tools leaders use to capture the attention of their “followers to be” to evoke emotion and to manage the meaning “of the task (challenges) facing the group.” 33  These tools help the leader influence the attitudes, motivation, and behavior of their followers.

Influence-Based Leadership Styles

Many writers and researchers have explored how leaders can use power to address the needs of various situations. One view holds that in traditional organizations members expect to be told what to do and are willing to follow highly structured directions. Individuals attracted to high-involvement organizations, however, want to make their own decisions, expect their leaders to allow them to do so, and are willing to accept and act on this responsibility. This suggests that a leader may use and employ power in a variety of ways.

The Tannenbaum and Schmidt Continuum

In the 1950s, Tannenbaum and Schmidt created a continuum (see  Figure 6 ) along which leadership styles range from authoritarian to extremely high levels of worker freedom. 34  Subsequent to Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s work, researchers adapted the continuum by categorizing leader power styles as  autocratic  (boss-centered),  participative  (workers are consulted and involved), or  free-rein (members are assigned the work and decide on their own how to do it; the leader relinquishes the active assumption of the role of leadership). 35

Theory X and Theory Y Leaders

McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y posits two different sets of attitudes about the individual as an organizational member. 36  Theory X and Y thinking gives rise to two different styles of leadership. The  Theory X leader  assumes that the average individual dislikes work and is incapable of exercising adequate self-direction and self-control. As a consequence, they exert a highly controlling leadership style. In contrast,  Theory Y leaders  believe that people have creative capacities, as well as both the ability and desire to exercise self-direction and self-control. They typically allow organizational members significant amounts of discretion in their jobs and encourage them to participate in departmental and organizational decision-making. Theory Y leaders are much more likely to adopt involvement-oriented approaches to leadership and organically designed organizations for their leadership group.

Theory X and Theory Y thinking and leadership are not strictly an American phenomenon. Evidence suggests that managers from different parts of the global community commonly hold the same view. A study of 3,600 managers from 14 countries reveals that most of them held assumptions about human nature that could best be classified as Theory X. 37  Even though managers might publicly endorse the merits of participatory management, most of them doubted their workers’ capacities to exercise self-direction and self-control and to contribute creatively. 38

Directive/Permissive Leadership Styles

Contemplating the central role of problem-solving in management and leadership, Jan P. Muczyk and Bernard C. Reimann of Cleveland State University offer an interesting perspective on four different leadership styles (see  Figure 7 ) that revolve around decision-making and implementation processes. 39

A  directive autocrat  retains power, makes unilateral decisions, and closely supervises workers’ activities. This style of leadership is seen as appropriate when circumstances require quick decisions and organizational members are new, inexperienced, or underqualified. A doctor in charge of a hastily constructed shelter for victims of a tornado may use this style to command nonmedical volunteers.

The  permissive autocrat  mixes his or her use of power by retaining decision-making power but permitting organizational members to exercise discretion when executing those decisions. This leader behavior is recommended when decision-making time is limited, when tasks are routine, or when organizational members have sufficient expertise to determine appropriate role behaviors.

Also sharing power is the  directive democrat,  who encourages participative decision-making but retains the power to direct team members in the execution of their roles. This style is appropriate when followers have valuable opinions and ideas, but one person needs to coordinate the execution of the ideas. A surgeon might allow the entire surgical team to participate in developing a plan for a surgical procedure. Once surgery begins, however, the surgeon is completely in charge.

Finally, the  permissive democrat  shares power with group members, soliciting involvement in both decision-making and execution. This style is appropriate when participation has both informational and motivational value, when time permits group decision-making, when group members are capable of improving decision quality, and when followers are capable of exercising self-management in their performance of work.

The permissive democratic approach to leadership is characteristic of leadership in high-involvement organizations. Here, leaders act as facilitators, process consultants, network builders, conflict managers, inspirationalists, coaches, teachers/mentors, and cheerleaders. 40  Such is the role of Ralph Stayer, founder, owner, and CEO of Johnsonville Foods. He defines himself as his company’s philosopher. At Quad/Graphics, president Harry V. Quadracci is a permissive democrat because he encourages all Quad employees to play a major role in decision-making and execution as they manage their teams as independent profit centers.

• What is the role of the leader and follower in the leadership process?
• How do the theories of Tannenbaum and Schmidt’s leadership continuum and McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y attempt to define leadership?

The Trait Approach to Leadership

Ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Chinese scholars were keenly interested in leaders and leadership. Their writings portray leaders as heroes. Homer, in his poem  The Odyssey , portrays Odysseus during and after the Trojan War as a great leader who had vision and self-confidence. His son Telemachus, under the tutelage of Mentor, developed his father’s courage and leadership skills. 41 Out of such stories there emerged the “great man” theory of leadership, and a starting point for the contemporary study of leadership.

The  great man theory of leadership  states that some people are born with the necessary attributes to be great leaders. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Napoleon, and Mahatma Gandhi are cited as naturally great leaders, born with a set of personal qualities that made them effective leaders. Even today, the belief that truly great leaders are born is common. For example, Kenneth Labich, writer for  Fortune  magazine, commented that “the best leaders seem to possess a God-given spark.” 42

During the early 1900s, scholars endeavored to understand leaders and leadership. They wanted to know, from an organizational perspective, what characteristics leaders hold in common in the hope that people with these characteristics could be identified, recruited, and placed in key organizational positions. This gave rise to early research efforts and to what is referred to as the  trait approach to leadership.  Prompted by the great man theory of leadership and the emerging interest in understanding what leadership is, researchers focused on the leader—Who is a leader? What are the distinguishing characteristics of the great and effective leaders? The great man theory of leadership holds that some people are born with a set of personal qualities that make truly great leaders. Mahatma Gandhi is often cited as a naturally great leader.

Leader Trait Research

Ralph Stogdill, while on the faculty at The Ohio State University, pioneered our modern (late 20th century) study of leadership. 43 Scholars taking the trait approach attempted to identify physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education, and socioeconomic background), personality (dominance, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and cooperativeness) with leader emergence and leader effectiveness. After reviewing several hundred studies of leader traits, Stogdill in 1974 described the successful leader this way:

The [successful] leader is characterized by a strong drive for responsibility and task completion, vigor and persistence in pursuit of goals, venturesomeness and originality in problem solving, drive to exercise initiative in social situations, self-confidence and sense of personal identity, willingness to accept consequences of decision and action, readiness to absorb interpersonal stress, willingness to tolerate frustration and delay, ability to influence other person’s behavior, and capacity to structure social interaction systems to the purpose at hand. 44

The last three decades of the 20th century witnessed continued exploration of the relationship between traits and both leader emergence and leader effectiveness. Edwin Locke from the University of Maryland and a number of his research associates, in their recent review of the trait research, observed that successful leaders possess a set of core characteristics that are different from those of other people. 45  Although these core traits do not solely determine whether a person will be a leader—or a successful leader—they are seen as preconditions that endow people with leadership potential. Among the core traits identified are:

• Drive —a high level of effort, including a strong desire for achievement as well as high levels of ambition, energy, tenacity, and initiative
• Leadership motivation —an intense desire to lead others
• Honesty and integrity —a commitment to the truth (nondeceit), where word and deed correspond
• Self-confidence —an assurance in one’s self, one’s ideas, and one’s ability
• Cognitive ability —conceptually skilled, capable of exercising good judgment, having strong analytical abilities, possessing the capacity to think strategically and multidimensionally
• Knowledge of the business —a high degree of understanding of the company, industry, and technical matters
• Other traits —charisma, creativity/originality, and flexibility/adaptiveness 46

While leaders may be “people with the right stuff,” effective leadership requires more than simply possessing the correct set of motives and traits. Knowledge, skills, ability, vision, strategy, and effective vision implementation are all necessary for the person who has the “right stuff” to realize their leadership potential. 47  According to Locke, people endowed with these traits engage in behaviors that are associated with leadership. As followers, people are attracted to and inclined to follow individuals who display, for example, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, and the motivation to lead.

Personality psychologists remind us that behavior is a result of an interaction between the person and the situation—that is, Behavior =  f  [(Person) (Situation)]. To this, psychologist Walter Mischel adds the important observation that personality tends to get expressed through an individual’s behavior in “weak” situations and to be suppressed in “strong” situations. 48  A strong situation is one with strong behavioral norms and rules, strong incentives, clear expectations, and rewards for a particular behavior. Our characterization of the mechanistic organization with its well-defined hierarchy of authority, jobs, and standard operating procedures exemplifies a strong situation. The organic social system exemplifies a weak situation. From a leadership perspective, a person’s traits play a stronger role in their leader behavior and ultimately leader effectiveness when the situation permits the expression of their disposition. Thus, personality traits prominently shape leader behavior in weak situations.

Finally, about the validity of the “great person approach to leadership”: Evidence accumulated to date does not provide a strong base of support for the notion that leaders are born. Yet, the study of twins at the University of Minnesota leaves open the possibility that part of the answer might be found in our genes. Many personality traits and vocational interests (which might be related to one’s interest in assuming responsibility for others and the motivation to lead) have been found to be related to our “genetic dispositions” as well as to our life experiences. 49  Each core trait recently identified by Locke and his associates traces a significant part of its existence to life experiences. Thus, a person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual and is within his control, and knowledge of the business can be acquired. While cognitive ability does in part find its origin in the genes, it still needs to be developed. Finally, drive, as a dispositional trait, may also have a genetic component, but it too can be self- and other-encouraged. It goes without saying that none of these ingredients are acquired overnight.

Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

The nearly four decades of research that focused on identifying the personal traits associated with the emergence of leaders and leader effectiveness resulted in two observations. First, leader traits are important—people who are endowed with the “right stuff” (drive, self-confidence, honesty, and integrity) are more likely to emerge as leaders and to be effective leaders than individuals who do not possess these characteristics. Second, traits are only a part of the story. Traits only account for part of why someone becomes a leader and why they are (or are not) effective leaders.

Still under the influence of the great man theory of leadership, researchers continued to focus on the leader in an effort to understand leadership—who emerges and what constitutes effective leadership. Researchers then began to reason that maybe the rest of the story could be understood by looking at what it is that leaders  do . Thus, we now turn our attention to leader behaviors and the behavioral approaches to leadership.

It is now common to think of effective leadership in terms of what leaders do. CEOs and management consultants agree that effective leaders display trust in their employees, develop a vision, keep their cool, encourage risk, bring expertise into the work setting, invite dissent, and focus everyone’s attention on that which is important. 59  William Arruda, in a  Fortune  article, noted that “organizations with strong coaching cultures report their revenue to be above average, compared to their peer group.” Sixty-five percent of employees “from strong coaching cultures rated themselves as highly engaged,” compared to 13 percent of employees worldwide.” 60 Jonathan Anthony calls himself an intrapreneur and corporate disorganizer, because same-old, same-old comms practices are dying in front of our eyes. 61  Apple founder Steve Jobs believed that the best leaders are coaches and team cheerleaders. Similar views have been frequently echoed by management consultant Tom Peters.

During the late 1940s, two major research programs—The Ohio State University and the University of Michigan leadership studies—were launched to explore leadership from a behavioral perspective.

The Ohio State University Studies

A group of Ohio State University researchers, under the direction of Ralph Stogdill, began an extensive and systematic series of studies to identify leader behaviors associated with effective group performance. Their results identified two major sets of leader behaviors: consideration and initiating structure.

Consideration  is the “relationship-oriented” behavior of a leader. It is instrumental in creating and maintaining good relationships (that is, addressing the group’s maintenance needs) with organizational members. Consideration behaviors include being supportive and friendly, representing people’s interests, communicating openly with group members, recognizing them, respecting their ideas, and sharing concern for their feelings.

Initiating structure  involves “task-oriented” leader behaviors. It is instrumental in the efficient use of resources to attain organizational goals, thereby addressing the group’s task needs. Initiating structure behaviors include scheduling work, deciding what is to be done (and how and when to do it), providing direction to organizational members, planning, coordinating, problem-solving, maintaining standards of performance, and encouraging the use of uniform procedures.

After consideration and initiating structure behaviors were first identified, many leaders believed that they had to behave one way or the other. If they initiated structure, they could not be considerate, and vice versa. It did not take long, however, to recognize that leaders can simultaneously display any combination of both behaviors.

The Ohio State studies are important because they identified two critical categories of behavior that distinguish one leader from another. Both consideration and initiating structure behavior can significantly impact work attitudes and behaviors. Unfortunately, the effects of consideration and initiating structure are not consistent from situation to situation. 62  In some of the organizations studied, for example, high levels of initiating structure increased performance. In other organizations, the amount of initiating structure seemed to make little difference. Although most organizational members reported greater satisfaction when leaders acted considerately, consideration behavior appeared to have no clear effect on performance.

Initially, these mixed findings were disappointing to researchers and managers alike. It had been hoped that a profile of the most effective leader behaviors could be identified so that leaders could be trained in the best ways to behave. Research made clear, however, that there is no one best style of leader behavior for all situations.

The University of Michigan Studies

At about the same time that the Ohio State studies were underway, researchers at the University of Michigan also began to investigate leader behaviors. As at Ohio State, the Michigan researchers attempted to identify behavioral elements that differentiated effective from ineffective leaders. 63

The two types of leader behavior that stand out in these studies are job centered and organizational member centered.  Job-centered behaviors  are devoted to supervisory functions, such as planning, scheduling, coordinating work activities, and providing the resources needed for task performance.  Employee-member-centered  behaviors include consideration and support for organizational members. These dimensions of behavior, of course, correspond closely to the dimensions of initiating structure and consideration identified at Ohio State. The similarity of the findings from two independent groups of researchers added to their credibility. As the Ohio State researchers had done, the Michigan researchers also found that any combination of the two behaviors was possible.

The studies at Michigan are significant because they reinforce the importance of leader behavior. They also provide the basis for later theories that identify specific, effective matches of work situations and leader behaviors. Subsequent research at Michigan and elsewhere has found additional behaviors associated with effective leadership: support, work facilitation, goal emphasis, and interaction facilitation. 64

These four behaviors are important to the successful functioning of the group in that support and interaction facilitation contribute to the group’s maintenance needs, and goal emphasis and work facilitation contribute to the group’s task needs. The Michigan researchers also found that these four behaviors do not need to be brought to the group by the leader. In essence, the leader’s real job is to set the tone and create the climate that ensure these critical behaviors are present. 65

The Leadership Grid ®

Much of the credit for disseminating knowledge about important leader behaviors must go to Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton, who developed a method for classifying styles of leadership compatible with many of the ideas from the Ohio State and Michigan studies. 66  In their classification scheme,  concern for results  (production) emphasizes output, cost effectiveness, and (in for-profit organizations) a concern for profits.  Concern for people  involves promoting working relationships and paying attention to issues of importance to group members. As shown in  Figure 9 , the Leadership Grid® demonstrates that any combination of these two leader concerns is possible, and five styles of leadership are highlighted here.

Blake and Mouton contend that the sound (contribute and commit) leader (a high concern for results and people, or 9,9) style is universally the most effective. 67  While the Leadership Grid® is appealing and well structured, research to date suggests that there is no universally effective style of leadership (9,9 or otherwise). 68  There are, however, well-identified situations in which a 9,9 style is unlikely to be effective. Organizational members of high-involvement organizations who have mastered their job duties require little production-oriented leader behavior. Likewise, there is little time for people-oriented behavior during an emergency. Finally, evidence suggests that the “high-high” style may be effective when the situation calls for high levels of initiating structure. Under these conditions, the initiation of structure is more acceptable, favorably affecting follower satisfaction and performance, when the leader is also experienced as warm, supportive, and considerate. 69

• What are the behavioral approaches to defining leadership?
• What roles do gender and the popular perceptions of gender roles have on views of leadership traits?

Situational (Contingency) Approaches to Leadership

As early as 1948, Ralph Stogdill stated that “the qualities, characteristics, and skills required in a leader are determined to a large extent by the demands of the situation in which he is to function as a leader.” 70  In addition, it had been observed that two major leader behaviors, initiating structure and consideration, didn’t always lead to equally positive outcomes. That is, there are times when initiating structure results in performance increases and follower satisfaction, and there are times when the results are just the opposite. Contradictory findings such as this lead researchers to ask “Under what conditions are the results positive in nature?” and “When and why are they negative at other times?” Obviously, situational differences and key contingencies are at work.

Several theories have been advanced to address this issue. These are Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership, the path-goal theory of leader effectiveness, Hersey and Blanchard’s life cycle theory, cognitive resource theory, the decision tree, and the decision process theory. 71  We explore two of the better-known situational theories of leadership, Fred Fiedler’s contingency model and Robert J. House’s path-goal theory, here. Victor Vroom, Phillip Yetton, and Arthur Jago’s decision tree model also applies.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model

One of the earliest, best-known, and most controversial situation-contingent leadership theories was set forth by Fred E. Fiedler from the University of Washington. 72  This theory is known as the  contingency theory of leadership.  According to Fiedler, organizations attempting to achieve group effectiveness through leadership must assess the leader according to an underlying trait, assess the situation faced by the leader, and construct a proper match between the two.

The Leader’s Trait

Leaders are asked about their  least-preferred coworker (LPC),  the person with whom they  least  like to work. The most popular interpretation of the LPC score is that it reflects a leader’s underlying disposition toward others—for example: pleasant/unpleasant, cold/warm, friendly/unfriendly, and untrustworthy/trustworthy. (You can examine your own LPC score by completing the LPC self-assessment on the following page.)

Fiedler states that leaders with high LPC scores are  relationship oriented —they need to develop and maintain close interpersonal relationships. They tend to evaluate their least-preferred coworkers in fairly favorable terms. Task accomplishment is a secondary need to this type of leader and becomes important only after the need for relationships is reasonably well satisfied. In contrast, leaders with low LPC scores tend to evaluate the individuals with whom they least like to work fairly negatively. They are  task-oriented  people, and only after tasks have been accomplished are low-LPC leaders likely to work on establishing good social and interpersonal relations.

The Situational Factor

Some situations favor leaders more than others do. To Fiedler,  situational favorableness  is the degree to which leaders have control and influence and therefore feel that they can determine the outcomes of a group interaction. 73  Several years later, Fiedler changed his situational factor from situational favorability to situational control—where situational control essentially refers to the degree to which a leader can influence the group process. 74  Three factors work together to determine how favorable a situation is to a leader. In order of importance, they are (1)  leader-member relations —the degree of the group’s acceptance of the leader, their ability to work well together, and members’ level of loyalty to the leader; (2)  task structure —the degree to which the task specifies a detailed, unambiguous goal and how to achieve it; and (3)  position power —a leader’s direct ability to influence group members. The situation is most favorable for a leader when the relationship between the leader and group members is good, when the task is highly structured, and when the leader’s position power is strong (cell 1 in  Figure 10 ). The least-favorable situation occurs under poor leader-member relations, an unstructured task, and weak position power (cell 8).

Leader-Situation Matches

Some combinations of leaders and situations work well; others do not. In search of the best combinations, Fiedler examined a large number of leadership situations. He argued that most leaders have a relatively unchangeable or dominant style, so organizations need to design job situations to fit the leader. 75

While the model has not been fully tested and tests have often produced mixed or contradictory findings, 76  Fiedler’s research indicates that relationship-oriented (high-LPC) leaders are much more effective under conditions of intermediate favorability than under either highly favorable or highly unfavorable situations. Fiedler attributes the success of relationship-oriented leaders in situations with intermediate favorability to the leader’s nondirective, permissive attitude; a more directive attitude could lead to anxiety in followers, conflict in the group, and a lack of cooperation.

For highly favorable and unfavorable situations, task-oriented leaders (those with a low LPC) are very effective. As tasks are accomplished, a task-oriented leader allows the group to perform its highly structured tasks without imposing more task-directed behavior. The job gets done without the need for the leader’s direction. Under unfavorable conditions, task-oriented behaviors, such as setting goals, detailing work methods, and guiding and controlling work behaviors, move the group toward task accomplishment.

As might be expected, leaders with mid-range LPC scores can be more effective in a wider range of situations than high- or low-LPC leaders. 77  Under conditions of low favorability, for example, a middle-LPC leader can be task oriented to achieve performance, but show consideration for and allow organizational members to proceed on their own under conditions of high situational favorability.

Controversy over the Theory

Although Fiedler’s theory often identifies appropriate leader-situation matches and has received broad support, it is not without critics. Some note that it characterizes leaders through reference to their attitudes or personality traits (LPC) while it explains the leader’s effectiveness through their behaviors—those with a particular trait will behave in a particular fashion. The theory fails to make the connection between the least-preferred coworker attitude and subsequent behaviors. In addition, some tests of the model have produced mixed or contradictory findings. 78  Finally, what is the true meaning of the LPC score—exactly what is being revealed by a person who sees their least-preferred coworker in positive or negative terms? Robert J. House and Ram N. Aditya recently noted that, in spite of the criticisms, there has been substantial support for Fiedler’s theory. 79

Path-Goal Theory

Robert J. House and Martin Evans, while on the faculty at the University of Toronto, developed a useful leadership theory. Like Fiedler’s, it asserts that the type of leadership needed to enhance organizational effectiveness depends on the situation in which the leader is placed. Unlike Fiedler, however, House and Evans focus on the leader’s observable behavior. Thus, managers can either match the situation to the leader or modify the leader’s behavior to fit the situation.

The model of leadership advanced by House and Evans is called the  path-goal theory of leadership  because it suggests that an effective leader provides organizational members with a  path  to a valued  goal.  According to House, the motivational function of the leader consists of increasing personal payoffs to organizational members for work-goal attainment, and making the path to these payoffs easier to travel by clarifying it, reducing roadblocks and pitfalls, and increasing the opportunities for personal satisfaction en route. 80

Effective leaders therefore provide rewards that are valued by organizational members. These rewards may be pay, recognition, promotions, or any other item that gives members an incentive to work hard to achieve goals. Effective leaders also give clear instructions so that ambiguities about work are reduced and followers understand how to do their jobs effectively. They provide coaching, guidance, and training so that followers can perform the task expected of them. They also remove barriers to task accomplishment, correcting shortages of materials, inoperative machinery, or interfering policies.

An Appropriate Match

According to the path-goal theory, the challenge facing leaders is basically twofold. First, they must analyze situations and identify the most appropriate leadership style. For example, experienced employees who work on a highly structured assembly line don’t need a leader to spend much time telling them how to do their jobs—they already know this. The leader of an archeological expedition, though, may need to spend a great deal of time telling inexperienced laborers how to excavate and care for the relics they uncover.

Second, leaders must be flexible enough to use different leadership styles as appropriate. To be effective, leaders must engage in a wide variety of behaviors. Without an extensive repertoire of behaviors at their disposal, a leader’s effectiveness is limited. 81  All team members will not, for example, have the same need for autonomy. The leadership style that motivates organizational members with strong needs for autonomy (participative leadership) is different from that which motivates and satisfies members with weaker autonomy needs (directive leadership). The degree to which leadership behavior matches situational factors will determine members’ motivation, satisfaction, and performance (see  Figure 11 ). 82

Behavior Dimensions

According to path-goal theory, there are four important dimensions of leader behavior, each of which is suited to a particular set of situational demands. 83

• Supportive leadership —At times, effective leaders demonstrate concern for the well-being and personal needs of organizational members. Supportive leaders are friendly, approachable, and considerate to individuals in the workplace. Supportive leadership is especially effective when an organizational member is performing a boring, stressful, frustrating, tedious, or unpleasant task. If a task is difficult and a group member has low self-esteem, supportive leadership can reduce some of the person’s anxiety, increase his confidence, and increase satisfaction and determination as well.
• Directive leadership —At times, effective leaders set goals and performance expectations, let organizational members know what is expected, provide guidance, establish rules and procedures to guide work, and schedule and coordinate the activities of members. Directive leadership is called for when role ambiguity is high. Removing uncertainty and providing needed guidance can increase members’ effort, job satisfaction, and job performance.
• Participative leadership —At times, effective leaders consult with group members about job-related activities and consider their opinions and suggestions when making decisions. Participative leadership is effective when tasks are unstructured. Participative leadership is used to great effect when leaders need help in identifying work procedures and where followers have the expertise to provide this help.
• Achievement-oriented leadership —At times, effective leaders set challenging goals, seek improvement in performance, emphasize excellence, and demonstrate confidence in organizational members’ ability to attain high standards. Achievement-oriented leaders thus capitalize on members’ needs for achievement and use goal-setting theory to great advantage.
• Identify and describe the variables presented in Fiedler’s theory of leadership.
• What are the leadership behaviors in the path-goal theory of leadership?
• What role does culture have in how leadership is viewed?
• What are the differences between the trait, behavioral, and situational approaches to defining leadership?

Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leadership

Several factors have been discovered that can substitute for or neutralize the effects of leader behavior (see  Table 1 ). 89   Substitutes for leadership behavior can clarify role expectations, motivate organizational members, or satisfy members (making it unnecessary for the leader to attempt to do so). In some cases, these substitutes supplement the behavior of a leader. Sometimes it is a group member’s characteristics that make leadership less necessary, as when a master craftsperson or highly skilled worker performs up to his or her own high standards without needing outside prompting. Sometimes the task’s characteristics take over, as when the work itself—solving an interesting problem or working on a familiar job—is intrinsically satisfying. Sometimes the characteristics of the organization make leadership less necessary, as when work rules are so clear and specific that workers know exactly what they must do without help from the leader (see  An Inside Look  at flat management structure and the orchestra with no leader).

Neutralizers  of leadership, on the other hand, are not helpful; they prevent leaders from acting as they wish. A computer-paced assembly line, for example, prevents a leader from using initiating structure behavior to pace the line. A union contract that specifies that workers be paid according to seniority prevents a leader from dispensing merit-based pay. Sometimes, of course, neutralizers can be beneficial. Union contracts, for example, clarify disciplinary proceedings and identify the responsibilities of both management and labor. Leaders must be aware of the presence of neutralizers and their effects so that they can eliminate troublesome neutralizers or take advantage of any potential benefits that accompany them (such as the clarity of responsibilities provided by a union contract). If a leader’s effectiveness is being neutralized by a poor communication system, for example, the leader might try to remove the neutralizer by developing (or convincing the organization to develop) a more effective system.

Followers differ considerably in their  focus of attention  while at work, thereby affecting the effectiveness of the act of leadership. Focus of attention is an employee’s cognitive orientation while at work. It reflects what and how strongly an individual thinks about various objects, events, or phenomena while physically present at work. Focus of attention reflects an individual difference in that not all individuals have the same cognitive orientation while at work—some think a great deal about their job, their coworkers, their leader, or off-the-job factors, while others daydream. 90  An employee’s focus of attention has both “trait” and “state” qualities. For example, there is a significant amount of minute-by-minute variation in an employee’s focus of attention (the “state” component), and there is reasonable consistency in the categories of events that employees think about while they are at work (the “trait” component).

Research suggests that the more followers focus on off-job (nonleader) factors, the less they will react to the leader’s behaviors. Thus, a strong focus on one’s life “away from work” (for example, time with family and friends) tends to neutralize the motivational, attitudinal, and/or behavioral effects associated with any particular leader behavior. It has also been observed, however, that a strong focus on the leader, either positive or negative, enhances the impact that the leader’s behaviors have on followers. 91

MANAGERIAL LEADERSHIP

You Are Now the Leader

Leading and managing are two very different things. Being a manager means something more than gaining authority or charge over former colleagues. With the title does come the power to affect company outcomes, but it also comes with something more: the power to shape the careers and personal growth of subordinates.

According to Steve Keating, a senior manager at the Toro Company, it is important not to assume that being made a manager automatically makes you a leader. Rather, being a manager means having the  opportunity  to lead. Enterprises need managers to guide processes, but the employees—the people—need a leader. Keating believes that leaders need a mindset that emphasizes people, and the leader’s job is to help the people in the organization to be successful. According to Keating, “If you don’t care for people, you can’t lead them” (Hakim 2017 n.p.).

For someone who has been promoted over his peers, ground rules are essential. “Promotion doesn’t mean the end of friendship but it does change it,” according to Keating. If a  peer  has been promoted, rather than grouse and give in to envy, it is important to step back and look at the new manager; take a hard look at why the peer was promoted and what skill or characteristic made you a less appealing fit for the position (Hakim 2017).

Carol Walker, president of Prepared to Lead, a management consulting firm, advises new managers to develop a job philosophy. She urges new managers to develop a core philosophy that provides a guide to the day-to-day job of leading. She urges managers to build up the people they are leading and work as a “servant leader.” The manager’s perspective should be on employee growth and success. Leaders must bear in mind that employees don’t work for the manager; they work for the organization—and for themselves. Managers coordinate this relationship; they are not the center of it. Work should not be assigned haphazardly, but with the employee’s skills and growth in mind. “An employee who understands why she has been asked to do something is far more likely to assume true ownership for the assignment,” Walker says (Yakowicz 2015 n.p.). A leader’s agenda should be on employee success, not personal glory. Employees are more receptive when they recognize that their leader is working not for their own success, but for the employee’s success.

A survey from HighGround revealed one important item that most new managers and even many seasoned managers overlook: asking for feedback. Everyone has room for growth, even managers. Traditional management dictates a top-down style in which managers review subordinates. But many companies have found it beneficial to turn things around and ask employees, “How can I be a better manager?” Of course, this upward review only works if employees believe that their opinion will be heard. Managers need to carefully cultivate a rapport where employees don’t fear reprisals for negative feedback. Listening to criticism from those you are leading builds trust and helps ensure that as a manager, you are providing the sort of leadership that employees need to be successful (Kauflin 2017). Showing respect and caring for employees by asking this simple question is  inspiring —an important aspect of leadership itself. Whether asking for feedback or focusing on an employee’s fit with a particular job description, a leader helps guide employees through the day-to-day, builds a positive culture, and helps employees improve their skills.

• What do you think are the most important qualities in a leader? In a manager? Are your two lists mutually exclusive? Why?
• How do you think a leader can use feedback to model the growth process for employees?
• Identify and describe substitutes of leadership.

Transformational, Visionary, and Charismatic Leadership

Many organizations struggling with the need to manage chaos, to undergo a culture change, to empower organizational members, and to restructure have looked for answers in “hiring the right leader.” Many have come to believe that the transformational, visionary, and charismatic leader represents the style of leadership needed to move organizations through chaos.

The Transformational and Visionary Leader

Leaders who subscribe to the notion that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” are often described as  transactional leaders.  They are extremely task oriented and instrumental in their approach, frequently looking for incentives that will induce their followers into a desired course of action. 92  These reciprocal exchanges take place in the context of a mutually interdependent relationship between the leader and the follower, frequently resulting in interpersonal bonding. 93  The transactional leader moves a group toward task accomplishment by initiating structure and by offering an incentive in exchange for desired behaviors. The  transformational leader , on the other hand, moves and changes (fixes) things “in a big way”! Unlike transactional leaders, they don’t cause change by offering inducements. Instead, they inspire others to action through their personal values, vision, passion, and belief in and commitment to the mission. 94 Through charisma (idealized influence), individualized consideration (a focus on the development of the follower), intellectual stimulation (questioning assumptions and challenging the status quo), and/or inspirational motivation (articulating an appealing vision), transformational leaders move others to follow.

The transformational leader is also referred to as a visionary leader.  Visionary leaders  are those who influence others through an emotional and/or intellectual attraction to the leader’s dreams of what “can be.” Vision links a present and future state, energizes and generates commitment, provides meaning for action, and serves as a standard against which to assess performance. 95  Evidence indicates that vision is positively related to follower attitudes and performance. 96  As pointed out by Warren Bennis, a vision is effective only to the extent that the leader can communicate it in such a way that others come to internalize it as their own. 97

As people, transformational leaders are engaging. They are characterized by extroversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience. 98  They energize others. They increase followers’ awareness of the importance of the designated outcome. 99  They motivate individuals to transcend their own self-interest for the benefit of the team and inspire organizational members to self-manage (become self-leaders). 100  Transformational leaders move people to focus on higher-order needs (self-esteem and self-actualization). When organizations face a turbulent environment, intense competition, products that may die early, and the need to move fast, managers cannot rely solely on organizational structure to guide organizational activity. In these situations, transformational leadership can motivate followers to be fully engaged and inspired, to internalize the goals and values of the organization, and to move forward with dogged determination!

Transformational leadership is positively related to follower satisfaction, performance, and acts of citizenship. These effects result from the fact that transformational leader behaviors elicit trust and perceptions of procedural justice, which in turn favorably impact follower satisfaction and performance. 101  As R. Pillai, C. Schriesheim, and E. Williams note, “when followers perceive that they can influence the outcomes of decisions that are important to them and that they are participants in an equitable relationship with their leader, their perceptions of procedural justice [and trust] are likely to be enhanced.” 102  Trust and experiences of organizational justice promote leader effectiveness, follower satisfaction, motivation, performance, and citizenship behaviors.

Charismatic Leadership

Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, and Queen Elizabeth I have something in common with Martin Luther King Jr., Indira Gandhi, and Winston Churchill. The effectiveness of these leaders originates in part in their  charisma , a special magnetic charm and appeal that arouses loyalty and enthusiasm. Each exerted considerable personal influence to bring about major events.

It is difficult to differentiate the charismatic and the transformational leader. True transformational leaders may achieve their results through the magnetism of their personality. In this case, the two types of leaders are essentially one and the same, yet it is important to note that not all transformational leaders have a personal “aura.”

Sociologist Max Weber evidenced an interest in charismatic leadership in the 1920s, calling  charismatic leaders  people who possess legitimate power that arises from “exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character.” 103  Charismatic leaders “single-handedly” effect changes even in very large organizations. Their personality is a powerful force, and the relationship that they forge with their followers is extremely strong.

The charismatic leadership phenomenon involves a complex interplay between the attributes of the leader and followers’ needs, values, beliefs, and perceptions. 104  At its extreme, leader-follower relationships are characterized by followers’ unquestioning acceptance; trust in the leader’s beliefs; affection; willing obedience to, emulation of, and identification with the leader; emotional involvement with his mission; and feelings of self-efficacy directed toward the leader’s mission. 105  This can work to better the welfare of individuals, such as when Lee Iacocca saved thousands of jobs through his dramatic turnaround of a failing corporate giant, the Chrysler Corporation. It also can be disastrous, as when David Koresh led dozens and dozens of men, women, and children to their fiery death in Waco, Texas. Individuals working for charismatic leaders often have higher task performance, greater task satisfaction, and lower levels of role conflict than those working for leaders with considerate or structuring behaviors. 106  What are the characteristics of these people who can exert such a strong influence over their followers? Charismatic leaders have a strong need for power and the tendency to rely heavily on referent power as their primary power base. 107  Charismatic leaders also are extremely self-confident and convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs and ideals. This self-confidence and strength of conviction make people trust the charismatic leader’s judgment, unconditionally following the leader’s mission and directives for action. 108  The result is a strong bond between leader and followers, a bond built primarily around the leader’s personality.

Although there have been many effective charismatic leaders, those who succeed the most have coupled their charismatic capabilities with behaviors consistent with the same leadership principles followed by other effective leaders. Those who do not add these other dimensions still attract followers but do not meet organizational goals as effectively as they could. They are (at least for a time) the pied pipers of the business world, with lots of followers but no constructive direction.

ETHICS IN PRACTICE

Uber’s Need for an Ethical Leader

Almost since its initial founding in 2009 as a luxury car service for the San Francisco area, controversy has followed Uber. Many complaints are against the tactics employed by the company’s founder and former CEO, Travis Kalanick, but the effects are found throughout the business and its operations.

In 2009, UberBlack was a “black car” service, a high-end driving service that cost more than a taxi but less than hiring a private driver for the night. It wasn’t until 2012 that the company launched UberX, the taxi-esque service most people think of today when they say “Uber.” The UberX service contracted with private drivers who provided rides in their personal vehicles. A customer would use Uber’s smartphone app to request the ride, and a private driver would show up. Originally launched in San Francisco, the service spread quickly, and by 2017, Uber was in 633 cities. The service was hailed by many as innovative and the free market’s answer to high-priced and sometimes unreliable taxi services. But Uber has not been without its critics, both inside and outside of the company.

In 2013, as the UberX service spread, some UberBlack drivers protested at the company’s headquarters complaining about poor company benefits and pay. They also claimed that competition from the newly launched UberX service was cutting into their sales and undermining job security. Kalanick rebuffed the protests, basically calling the complaints sour grapes: most of the protestors had been laid off earlier for poor service (Lawler 2013). Controversy also arose over the use of contract drivers rather than full-time employees. Contractors complained about a lack of benefits and low wages. Competitors, especially taxi services, complained that they were being unfairly undercut because Uber didn’t have to abide by the same screening process and costs that traditional yellow taxi companies did. Some municipalities agreed, arguing further than Uber’s lack of or insufficient screening of drivers put passengers at risk.

Uber quickly generated a reputation as a bully and Kalanick as an unethical leader (Ann 2016). The company has been accused of covering up cases of sexual assault, and Kalanick himself has been quoted as calling the service “Boob-er,” a reference to using the service to pick up women (Ann 2016). Uber has been criticized for its recruiting practices; in particular, it has been accused of bribing drivers working for competitors to switch over and drive for Uber (Ann 2016).The company was also caught making false driver requests for competing companies and then canceling the order. The effect was to waste the other driver’s time and make it more difficult for customers to secure rides on the competing service (D’Orazio 2014). Susan J. Fowler, former site reliability engineer at Uber, went public with cases of outright sexual harassment within Uber (Fowler 2017). Former employees described Uber’s corporate culture as an “a**hole culture” and a “‘Hobbesian jungle’ where you can never get ahead unless someone else dies.” (Wong 2017) One employee described a leadership that encouraged a company practice of developing incomplete solutions for the purpose of beating the competitor to market. Fowler went so far as to compare the experience to Game of Thrones, and other former employees even consider “making it” at Uber a black mark on a resume (Wong 2017).

In terms of social acrimony and PR disasters, arguably caused or even encouraged by leadership, Uber’s rise to notoriety has arguably been more bad than good. In June 2017, Kalanick made one too many headlines and agreed to step down as the company’s CEO.

• In the summer of 2017, Transport of London (TfL) began proceedings to revoke Uber’s permit to operate in London. How do think Uber’s poor corporate reputation may have been a factor in TfL’s thinking?
• What steps do you think Uber’s new CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, needs to take to repair Uber’s reputation?
• Despite Uber’s apparent success in launching in multiple markets, it continues to post quarterly losses in the millions and shareholders effectively subsidize 59 percent of every ride (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-profitability/true-price-of-an-uber-ride-in-question-as-investors-assess-firms-value-idUSKCN1B3103). How is this an outworking of Uber’s overall corporate culture?
• What are the defining characteristics of transformational and charismatic leaders?

Leadership Needs in the 21st Century

Frequent headlines in popular business magazines like  Fortune  and  Business Week  call our attention to a major movement going on in the world of business. Organizations are being reengineered and restructured, and network, virtual, and modular corporations are emerging. People talk about the transnational organization, the boundaryless company, the post-hierarchical organization. By the end of the decade, the organizations that we will be living in, working with, and competing against are likely to be vastly different from what we know today.

The transition will not be easy; uncertainty tends to breed resistance. We are driven by linear and rational thinking, which leads us to believe that “we can get there from here” by making some incremental changes in who we are and what we are currently doing. Existing paradigms frame our perceptions and guide our thinking. Throwing away paradigms that have served us well in the past does not come easily.

A look back tells most observers that the past decade has been characterized by rapid change, intense competition, an explosion of new technologies, chaos, turbulence, and high levels of uncertainty. A quick scan of today’s business landscape suggests that this trend is not going away anytime soon. According to Professor Jay A. Conger from Canada’s McGill University, “In times of great transition, leadership becomes critically important. Leaders, in essence, offer us a pathway of confidence and direction as we move through seeming chaos. The magnitude of today’s changes will demand not only  more  leadership, but  newer forms  of leadership.” 109

According to Conger, two major forces are defining for us the genius of the next generation of leaders. The first force is the organization’s external environment. Global competitiveness is creating some unique leadership demands. The second force is the growing diversity in organizations’ internal environments. Diversity will significantly change the relationship between organizational members, work, and the organization in challenging, difficult, and also very positive ways.

What will the leaders of tomorrow be like? Professor Conger suggests that the effective leaders of the 21st century will have to be many things. 110  They will have to be  strategic opportunists;  only organizational visionaries will find strategic opportunities before competitors. They will have to be  globally aware ; with 80 percent of today’s organizations facing significant foreign competition, knowledge of foreign markets, global economics, and geopolitics is crucial. They will have to be  capable of managing a highly decentralized organization ; movement toward the high-involvement organization will accelerate as the environmental demands for organizational speed, flexibility, learning, and leanness increase. They will have be  sensitive to diversity ; during the first few years of the 21st century, fewer than 10 percent of those entering the workforce in North America will be white, Anglo-Saxon males, and the incoming women, minorities, and immigrants will bring with them a very different set of needs and concerns. They will have to be  interpersonally competent ; a highly diverse workforce will necessitate a leader who is extremely aware of and sensitive to multicultural expectations and needs. They will have to be  builders of an organizational community ; work and organizations will serve as a major source of need fulfillment, and in the process leaders will be called on to help build this community in such a way that organizational members develop a sense of ownership for the organization and its mission.

Finally, it is important to note that leadership theory construction and empirical inquiry are an ongoing endeavor. While the study of traits, behavior, and contingency models of leadership provide us with a great deal of insight into leadership, the mosaic is far from complete. During the past 15 years, several new theories of leadership have emerged; among them are leader-member exchange theory, implicit leadership theory, neocharismatic theory, value-based theory of leadership, and visionary leadership, 111  each of which over time will add to our bank of knowledge about leaders and the leadership process.

Leaders of the 21st-century organization have a monumental challenge awaiting them and a wealth of self-enriching and fulfilling opportunities. The challenge and rewards awaiting effective leaders are awesome!

• What is the role of leadership in the 21st century?

A social (interpersonal) influence relationship between two or more persons who depend on each other to attain certain mutual goals in a group situation.

designated leader

The person placed in the leadership position by forces outside the group.

emergent leader

The person who becomes a group’s leader by virtue of processes and dynamics internal to the group.

formal leader

That individual who is recognized by those outside the group as the official leader of the group.

informal leader

That individual whom members of the group acknowledge as their leader.

great man theory of leadership

The belief that some people are born to be leaders and others are not.

consideration

A “relationship-oriented” leader behavior that is supportive, friendly, and focused on personal needs and interpersonal relationships.

initiating structure

A “task-oriented” leader behavior that is focused on goal attainment, organizing and scheduling work, solving problems, and maintaining work processes.

contingency theory of leadership

A theory advanced by Dr. Fred E. Fiedler that suggests that different leadership styles are effective as a function of the favorableness of the leadership situation least preferred.

Least-preferred coworker (LPC)

The person with whom the leader least likes to work.

path-goal theory of leadership

A theory that posits that leadership is path- and goal-oriented, suggesting that different leadership styles are effective as a function of the task confronting the group.

A special personal magnetic charm or appeal that arouses loyalty and enthusiasm in a leader-follower relationship.

charismatic leader

A person who possesses legitimate power that arises from “exceptional sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character.”

transformational leader

A leader who moves and changes things “in a big way” by inspiring others to perform the extraordinary.

visionary leader

A leader who influences others through an emotional and/or intellectual attraction to the leader’s dreams of what “can be.”

Summary of Learning Outcomes

13.1 The Nature of Leadership

Leadership is a primary vehicle for fulfilling the directing function of management. Because of its importance, theorists, researchers, and practitioners have devoted a tremendous amount of attention and energy to unlocking the secrets of effective leadership. They have kept at this search for perhaps a greater period of time than for any other single issue related to management.

13.2 The Leadership Process

Organizations typically have both formal and informal leaders. Their leadership is effective for virtually identical reasons. Leadership and management are not the same. Although effective leadership is a necessary part of effective management, the overall management role is much larger than leadership alone. Managers plan, organize, direct, and control. As leaders, they are engaged primarily in the directing function.

13.3 Leader Emergence

There are many diverse perspectives on leadership. Some managers treat leadership primarily as an exercise of power. Others believe that a particular belief and attitude structure makes for effective leaders. Still others believe it is possible to identify a collection of leader traits that produces a leader who should be universally effective in any leadership situation. Even today, many believe that a profile of behaviors can universally guarantee successful leadership. Unfortunately, such simple solutions fall short of the reality.

13.4 The Trait Approach to Leadership

13.5 Behavioral Approaches to Leadership

It is clear that effective leaders are endowed with the “right stuff,” yet this “stuff” is only a precondition to effective leadership. Leaders need to connect with their followers and bring the right configuration of knowledge, skills, ability, vision, and strategy to the situational demands confronting the group.

13.6 Situational (Contingency) Approaches to Leadership

We now know that there is no one best way to be an effective leader in all circumstances. Leaders need to recognize that how they choose to lead will affect the nature of their followers’ compliance with their influence tactics, and ultimately impacts motivation, satisfaction, performance, and group effectiveness. In addition, the nature of the situation—contextual demands and characteristics of the follower—dictates the type of leadership that is likely to be effective. Fiedler focuses on leader traits and argues that the favorableness of the leadership situation dictates the type of leadership approach needed. He recommends selecting leaders to match the situation or changing the situation to match the leader. Path-goal theory focuses on leader behavior that can be adapted to the demands of a particular work environment and organizational members’ characteristics. Path-goal theorists believe both that leaders can be matched with the situation and that the situation can be changed to match leaders. Together, these theories make clear that leadership is effective when the characteristics and behavior of the leader match the demands of the situation.

13.7 Substitutes for and Neutralizers of Leadership

• What does the concept of “substitute for leadership” mean?

Characteristics of followers, tasks, and organizations can substitute for or neutralize many leader behaviors. Leaders must remain aware of these factors, no matter which perspective on leadership they adopt. Such awareness allows managers to use substitutes for, and neutralizers of, leadership to their benefit, rather than be stymied by their presence.

13.8 Transformational, Visionary, and Charismatic Leadership

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in key leader traits and behaviors. As organizations face increasing amounts of chaos in their external environments, searches for “the right leader” who can bring about major organizational transformations has intensified. This search once again focuses our attention on a set of “key” motives, knowledge, skills, and personality attributes. Emerging from this search has been the identification of the charismatic and transformational leader.

13.9 Leadership Needs in the 21st Century

Leadership in the high-involvement organization differs dramatically from that in the traditional and control-oriented organization. Leaders external to the team have as one of their primary roles empowering group members and the teams themselves to self-lead and self-manage. Leaders internal to the team are peers; they work alongside and simultaneously facilitate planning, organizing, directing, controlling, and the execution of the team’s work.

Although we know a great deal about the determinants of effective leadership, we have much to learn. Each theory presented in this chapter is put into practice by managers every day. None provides the complete answer to what makes leaders effective, but each has something important to offer.

Finally, our understanding of leadership has many shortcomings and limitations. The existing literature is largely based on observations from a Western industrialized context. The extent to which our theories of leadership are bound by our culture, limiting generalization to other cultures, is largely unknown. Cross-cultural leadership research will no doubt intensify as the global economy becomes an ever more dominant force in the world.

Chapter Review Questions

• Define leadership and distinguish between leadership and management.
• Discuss the processes associated with people coming to positions of leadership.
• Discuss the different forms of power available to leaders and the effects associated with each.
• It has been observed that effective leaders have the “right stuff.” What traits are commonly associated with leader emergence and effective leaders?
• Both the Ohio State University and University of Michigan leadership studies identified central leader behaviors. What are these behaviors, and how are they different from one another?
• Blake and Mouton’s work with the Leadership Grid® identified several leadership types. What are they, and how does this leadership model look from the perspective of situation theories of leadership?
• Identify and describe the three situational variables presented in Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership.
• What are the four leadership behaviors in the path-goal theory of leadership?
• Discuss the differences between the internal and external leadership roles surrounding self-managed work teams.
• What are substitutes for leadership? What are neutralizers? Give an example of each.
• What are the distinguishing features of the transformational and the charismatic leader

Group Skills Application Exercises

• Identify a charismatic leader and a leader with little charisma. What are the traits and skills that allow them to succeed in their roles? How can you incorporate the traits that allow them to be successful in their roles into the skills you will need to have in a leadership position?
• You have just taken a leadership position where 40 percent of the workforce telecommutes. You want to encourage teamwork and want to ensure that telecommuting is not hurting teamwork. What is your plan to discover how things are working and how to communicate your desire to have effective teamwork?
• You are at a meeting, and during the meeting someone on the team addresses their manager and points out a crucial mistake that could doom the project. The person says that their manager should have caught it and because of that should resign. As a leader of the group, how would you deal with the subordinate, the manager, and communication with the entire team?

Problem Solving in Teams and Groups Copyright © 2021 by Cameron W. Piercy, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Factors that Influence Drivers' Response Choice Decisions in Video Recorded Crashes 2005-01-0426

Video recordings of real life traffic crashes and near crashes were analysed for driver response choice. These responses were compared to problem solving theories. In emergency situations drivers were likely to make relatively quick decisions. By allocating limited time to the decision, an algorithmic approach (that considers the probabilities of all options) is not possible in most cases. Instead a driver will decide upon a response using an intuitive (heuristic) approach. Intuitive decision-making is quicker and rule-of-thumb based but has predictable limitations. Drivers exhibited functional fixedness in that they did not select a “lesser” collision and nearly 40% of horn use was for chastising other drivers rather than for avoidance. Drivers exhibited difference reduction in that they were more likely to steer away from hazards. Also, drivers exhibited operant conditioning in that as the complexity of the situation increased, the likelihood of braking as a response increased as well. Therefore, this research shows that drivers' decisions were governed by intuition and that drivers will not likely consider all possible alternatives in the short time available in an emergency situation. The results of this research were compared to previous research. Applications in forensic settings, for driver education, and as a baseline when evaluating driver choice for Intelligent Transportation Systems purposes is addressed.

SAE MOBILUS

Subscribers can view annotate, and download all of SAE's content. Learn More »

Access SAE MOBILUS »

Relationship Between Relative Velocity Detection and Driver Response Times in Vehicle Following Situations

2005-01-0427

View Details

Development and Evaluation of Driver Response Time Predictors Based upon Meta Analysis

2003-01-0885

Evaluating Driver Response to a Sudden Emergency: Issues of Expectancy, Emotional Arousal and Uncertainty

2002-01-0089