International Journal of Management

Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 

A Behavioral Roles Approach to Assessing and Improving

the Team Leadership Capabilities of Managers
Charles J. Hobson
Indiana University Northwest
David Strupeck
Indiana University Northwest
Jana Szostek
Indiana University Northwest
Success in today’s globally competitive marketplace requires that managers have the
ability to effectively lead teams. While some individuals appear to have an innate, almost
effortless capability to lead teams, most managers benefit from systematic efforts to
assess and improve their performance in this critical area. Research on small group
interaction and leadership behavior in teams is used to identify a set of task, social,
and dysfunctional behavioral roles that are critical to team leader success. The widely
used, well-researched leaderless group discussion (LGD) exercise is proposed as a
potentially useful tool to measure team leadership role behaviors. A structured protocol
is introduced, employing the LGD to assess and improve team leadership capabilities in
individuals. Examples of protocol use in business and academia are discussed. Finally,
several directions for future research are considered.
Introduction
The widespread utilization of teams in U.S. business continues unabated (Thompson,
2008). Paralleling this strong organizational interest, a large body of research has
accumulated on teams and the critical leadership behaviors necessary for success (Burke,
Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006).
Findings from this empirical base, along with research in employee selection
methodology, allow one to address important practical challenges that businesses face in
trying to maximize overall team performance. These challenges include: (1) specifically
identifying, defining, and measuring essential team leadership behaviors and (2) assessing,
selecting, and developing effective team leaders.
This paper was written to respond to the above challenges and provide research-based
guidance to practitioners, with two explicit objectives. First, a rigorous protocol to
measure and improve critical team leadership capabilities in individuals will be introduced
and described. Second applications of the protocol will be discussed in both business
(training and selection/promotion) and academic (student learning) environments.
Group Roles and Team Leadership
The systematic study of behavioral roles in groups and their impact on overall
performance began with the social psychological research of Benne and Sheats (1948) and
Bales (1950;a,b). In their seminal article entitled, “Functional Roles of Group Members”,
Benne and Sheats described two major types of group roles: task-management and
 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

interpersonal. Included as task-management roles were such activities as: (1) initiating-
-suggesting new ideas or goals, (2) information seeking--asking relevant questions, and
(3) orienting--keeping the group on-track.
Among the interpersonal roles identified as important were: (1) encouraging--giving
positive feedback to others, (2) harmonizing--mediating or negotiating conflicts between
group members, and (3) gatekeeping--facilitating participation by all group members.
Bales (1950; a, b) also conceptualized group interaction as consisting of two basic
categories of behavioral roles--task and social-emotional. Task roles encompassed
those behaviors directly related to accomplishing the mission or purpose of group (for
example: giving suggestions and direction; repeating, clarifying; providing analysis
and evaluation).
Social-emotional roles included behaviors that focused on the interpersonal relationships
among group members, including: giving help and rewarding; showing understanding and
acceptance; releasing tension through jokes and laughter. Additionally, Bales recognized
the potential for dysfunctional roles in small group interaction and identified several
possibilities. Among them were: antagonism and personal attacks; passive rejection or
refusal to participate; creates tension.
Building upon these early studies of small group interaction, three prominent teams of
university researchers independently developed two-factor models to describe essential
leader behaviors. These included: Ohio State (Stogdill & Coons, 1957) with initiating
structure and consideration; the University of Michigan (Likert, 1961) with job-centered
and employee-centered; The University of Texas (Blake & Mouton, 1964) with concern
for production and concern for people.
Subsequent research on leadership behavior in general and team leadership behavior in
particular has relied heavily on this common two-factor model (Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig,
2008). Fleishman, Mumford, Zaccaro, Levin, Korotkin and Hein (1991) identified a total
of 65 “different” classification systems in the literature on leader behavior, all of which
essentially reflected the same two basic categories of task-focused and people-focused.
Similarly, Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002), in reviewing 50 years of research, concluded
that the two fundamental categories of leader behavior (task-oriented and people-oriented)
had been extensively examined and shown to be related to leadership effectiveness.
Burke, et al. (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature on important leader
behaviors within teams. They found that: (1) the two-factor model (task-oriented
and people-oriented) had been extensively and effectively utilized as an approach to
understanding and describing leadership within teams and (2) the performance of both
task-oriented roles and people-oriented roles was significantly related to team success.
Integrating the research described above on small group interaction and the two-factor
model of team leadership behavior, a comprehensive set of ten task-related roles, six
social-related roles, and five dysfunctional roles was developed. These roles and brief
definitions are provide in Figure 1.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 

Figure1. Team Leadership Roles

Task roles include:
1. Initiator: Proposes tasks, goals or procedures; defines team problems; begins
discussion; restarts discussion during quiet times.
2. Information Seeker: Asks for factual clarification; requests facts pertinent to the discussion;
asks questions of teammates.
3. Values Seeker: Asks about the values underlying teammate statements or positions;
questions values involved in alternative points of view.
4. Informer: Offers facts related to team’s task; gives expression of feelings; gives
opinions; answers teammate questions.
5. Clarifier: Interprets ideas or suggestions; defines terms; explains complex issues;
clears up confusion.
6. Summarizer: Takes notes on group discussion; pulls together related ideas; restates
suggestions; offers summary decisions or conclusions for the team to
consider; reviews team progress.
7. Reality Tester: Conducts critical analyses of ideas; tests ideas against data or experience
to see if the ideas would work; shares “real world” examples to test team
ideas.
8. Orienteer: Keeps team on track; draws attention to departures from agreed upon
directions or goals; raises questions about the direction pursued in team
discussions; refocuses team when needed, keeps track of time.
9. Piggy-Backer: Builds on the ideas of others; offers new, creative suggestions, based upon
teammate input.
10. Follower: Allows teammates to share in actively performing leadership roles; goes
along with the movement of the team; accepts the ideas of others.
Social roles include:
1. Harmonizer: Focuses criticism on ideas, not individuals; attempts to reconcile
disagreements; reduces tension; helps smooth over minor differences;
gets people to explore differences; appropriately uses humor to help keep
team relaxed.
2. Gatekeeper: Helps to keep communication channels open; facilitates the participation
of others; suggests procedures that permit sharing remarks; gently calls
upon quiet teammates to solicit their input.
3. Consensus Taker: Asks to see whether the team is nearing a decision; “sends up trial balloons”
to test possible solutions; asks if everyone agrees with a proposed
decision.
4. Encourager: Is friendly, warm and responsive to others; indicates by facial expressions
or remarks the acceptance of others’ contributions; listens attentively;
gives positive feedback to teammates; calls teammates by first name.
5. Compromiser: Proposes solutions that demonstrate flexibility and willingness to “give in”
if necessary when his or her own ideas are involved in conflicts; modifies
one’s position in the interest of team cohesion and/or performance.
6. Standard Setter: Suggests standards for the team interaction and performance; applies
standards in evaluating the quality of team processes and output.
continued...
 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

The assessment of team leadership behavioral roles can take many farms. One of the
most popular and effective involves the use of the leaderless group discussion. This
evaluation methodology will be described in the next section.
Leaderless Group Discussion
The leaderless group-discussion (LGD) exercise involves posing a problem to a small
group of 5-6 individuals seated around a table and asking them to verbally consider
the problem and develop a solution, within 30-60 minutes. No formal team leader is
designated; hence the “leaderless” group discussion. The behavior of LGD participants
is observed/taped and evaluated on a variety of dimensions.

According to Ansbacher (1951), the LGD was first used by J.B. Rieffert with the German
military as a personnel evaluation tool from 1920 to 1931. Bass (1954) and his colleagues
subsequently popularized applications of the LGD in the United States and conducted
extensive research with it.

Presently, the LGD is most commonly utilized as an essential component of managerial

assessment centers (Thornton & Rupp, 2003; Thornton & Rupp, 2006). As noted by
Cascio (2006), research on the LGD has shown it to be a reliable predictor of important
aspects of managerial performance.

The LGD is ideally suited to measure leadership behaviors exhibited by participants.

Using the team leadership roles framework presented in Figure 1 above, an evaluation tool
was developed for use with the LGD. (see Figure 2 below ). It requires observers to rate
the frequency of an individual participant’s role behaviors on a zero to four scale (very
similar to that originally utilized by Bass, 1954), from “0”=never to “4”= always.

Figure1. Team Leadership Roles (continued)

Dysfunctional roles include:
1. Blocker: Blindly and consistently disagrees with and opposes action; stubbornly
resists team’s decisions and thwarts action.
2. Dominator: Aggressively attempts to force ideas on the team; interrupts others; attempts
to manipulate and control team interaction; refuses to compromise; fails
to allow others to talk.
3. Avoider: Withholds involvement from team interaction; fails to contribute to team
efforts; refuses to confront important issues.
4. Clown: Engages in irrelevant, distracting behaviors; seeks team members’
attention; tries to show-off; inappropriately attempts to create humorous
situations; starts side conversations.
5. Insulter: Attacks other team members in a destructive and personalized manner;
sarcastic; pessimistic; negative.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 

Figure 2. Team Leadership Roles Evaluation Form

Directions: Use the 0-4 (Never-Always) scale below to evaluate the target person
on the specific behaviors listed.
0-4 Evaluation Scale
0- Never
1 - Rarely
2 - Occasionally
3 - Frequently
4 - Always

Positive Behaviors Negative Behaviors

Task Roles 0-4 Rating
0-4 Rating
_____ 1. Initiator ____ 1. Blocker (Thwarts Decision Making)
_____ 2. Information Seeker ____ 2. Dominator (Manipulates, Controls)
_____ 3. Values Seeker ____ 3. Avoider (Withholds Involvement)
_____ 4. Informer ____ 4. Clown (Irrelevant Behavior)
_____ 5. Clarifier ____ 5. Insulter (Offends Others)
_____ 6. Summarizer
_____ 7. Reality Tester
_____ 8. Orienteer
_____ 9. Piggy-Backer
_____ 10. Follower

Social Roles
_____ 1. Harmonizer
_____ 2. Gatekeeper
_____ 3. Consensus Taker
_____ 4. Encourager
_____ 5. Compromiser
_____ 6. Standard Setter
 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

Assessment and Development Protocol Methodology

Using the research described above, a protocol was formulated to provide a structured
process to assess and develop critical team leadership capabilities in individuals in
business and/or academic settings. It consists of the following steps, each of which will
be briefly described below.
1. First LGD A group of 5-6 assessment candidates is seated at a large round table,
using only half of it. This seating arrangement allows for the unobstructed view of
each candidate by one or more video cameras. The group is given a problem to discuss
and solve, within a specific time period (from 30-60 minutes). No leader is appointed.
They are informed that the interaction will be videotaped. Candidates are then asked to
introduce themselves and begin the process.
The use of multiple cameras can be very helpful. It allows for production of a final taped
record of the LGD that consists of a split screen – a panoramic view of the entire group
on top and a close-up view of the speaker on the bottom.
2. Rating Tool Introduction and Training After completing the LGD, participants
receive an introduction to the team leadership roles summarized in Figure 1. They are
then given the Team Leadership Roles Evaluation Form, using the 0-4 scale, that is
provided in Figure 2. Instruction follows, concerning how to use the rating tool to assess
team leadership roles, with illustrative examples and behavioral scenarios to rate. Any
questions about the tool or its use are answered.
3. Initial Self-Assessment Participants are given a personal copy of the DVD recording
of their LGD. They are asked to carefully review it (rewinding or repeating as often as
necessary) and then assess themselves, using the Team Leadership Roles Evaluation
Form. Their completed self-assessment consists of ratings from 0-4 for each of the ten
Task Leadership Roles, six Social Leadership Roles, and five Dysfunctional Roles.
Using their completed assessment tool, participants are asked to summarize their
performance by identifying 3-5 prominent strengths (with supporting observations) and
3-5 major areas for improvement (with supporting observations). A form to collect this
information is provided in Figure 3.
Finally, everyone is directed to formulate a specific plan to address their 3-5 areas for
improvement. Figure 4 provides the form used to solicit this information.
4. Initial Coaching Assessment Participants are paired-off with one another for purposes
of the coaching assessment. Each individual receives a copy of the DVD containing
his/her partner’s LGD. They are asked to review the DVD interactions and complete:
(1) The Team Leadership Roles Evaluation Form for their partner, (2) the summary of
3-5 strengths and 3-5 areas of improvement, and (3) the specific improvement plan.
Everyone is told that they will be meeting individually with their participant coach and
the trainer/facilitator to discuss their performance in the LGD. Coaching guidelines for
giving positive and corrective feedback are then distributed and discussed.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 

Figure 3. Team Leadership Skills Summary Assessment

3-5 Prominent Strengths Supporting Observations

1. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
5. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________

3-5 Major Areas of Improvement Supporting Observations

1. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
5. _________________________ _____________________
10 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

Asking individuals to objectively evaluate another participant’s performance helps to

enhance their understanding of the assessment tool and critical team leadership roles.
Also, knowing that they will be asked to provide face-to-face coaching to another
participant motivates them to more carefully and accurately complete the rating tool,
paying special attention to supporting observations.
5. Initial Self Meeting A meeting is scheduled for each individual with his/her participant
coach and the trainer/facilitator. The purpose of the meeting is to review the individual’s
performance in the first LGD and formulate an improvement plan. The session focus
is not on fault finding, but rather on recognizing the person for what they did well and
offering constructive suggestions for fine-tuning.

Figure 4. Team Leadership Roles Improvement Plan

Specific Skill Area Plan for Improvement

1. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________

2. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________

3. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________

4. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________

5. _________________________ _____________________
_____________________
_____________________
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 11

Meetings are structured in the following manner. The individual is first asked to share
his/her self perceived strengths and supporting observations. Next, the participant coach
shares the same information from his/her evaluation, followed by the trainer/facilitator.
Similarities in ratings are noted, while differences are discussed and resolved. The same
format is followed when addressing areas for improvement. The final topic of the meeting
involves a presentation by the individual of his/her plan for improvement. Comments
and suggestions are then shared by the participant coach and trainer/facilitator.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the individual is able to calculate four scores: (1) a task
roles composite score, consisting of the sum of scores for the 10 task-related items on
the evaluation tool, (2) a social roles composite score--the sum of the six social-related
items, (3) a dysfunctional roles composite score--the sum of the five dysfunctional role
items, and (4) an overall team leadership score--the sum of the task and social composite
scores, minus the dysfunctional composite score. Copies of the written evaluations from
the participant coach and trainer/facilitator are provided to each individual.
One interesting point about the self-assessments should be made. Many participants,
after viewing their DVD, notice for the first time that their speech is plagued by the
frequent use of verbal fillers or tics, such as “ah”, “um”, and “like”. As a result of this
self-revelation, many participants are able to consciously attend to their speech and
reduce/eliminate the use of such distractions.
6. Initial Coaching Meeting After conducting the self meeting described in step 5 above,
the two participants involved “switch roles” and repeat the process. This gives each
individual an opportunity to be assessed, as well as function as an assessor/coach.
7. Training/Education After the initial round of assessment activities has been
completed, participants are provided with training/education on several topics essential
to understanding team leadership and teamwork, along with experiential exercises to
illustrate key points. The topics addressed include: (1) the stages of team development,
(2) the roles of team leaders in the developmental process, (3) obstacles to effective
teamwork, (4) team norms and sanctions, (5) team decision making, (6) team building,
and (7) conflict resolution.
8. Second LGD At the conclusion of the training/education component, a second LGD
is conducted, following the format described above for the First LGD. Participants are
encouraged to focus on their areas for improvement, as identified in the initial taping.
9. Final Self-Assessment Participants are asked to complete their final self-assessment,
based upon their performance in the second LGD, using the same tool and format
described in step 3 above. They are also instructed to critique their progress in addressing
areas for improvement.
10. Final Coaching Assessment Participants review and evaluate the LGD performance
of their partner in the second taping, following the process described in step 4 above.
Specific comments are solicited about their partner’s progress in making targeted
improvements.
12 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

11. Final Self Meeting The format and objectives of the final self meeting are identical to
the initial session, with one addition. The individual concludes the meeting by initiating
a discussion of his/her progress in achieving improvement objectives. The participant
coach then summarizes his/her progress evaluation, followed by the trainer/facilitator.
Using the consensus ratings for task, social, and dysfunctional roles, the individual can
calculate composite scores and compare them with similar scores from the first LGD.
This provides for a quantitative index of improvement (or potentially a decrease in team
leadership effectiveness, although this has not been observed).
12. Final Coaching Meeting After the final self meeting, the two individual participants
switch roles and repeat the process described above in step 11.

Applications
The protocol described in this paper has been utilized in a variety of settings. Four specific
applications will be reviewed below, three in business and one in academia.
Business Applications
The first two business applications were very similar in a number of respects: (1)
the companies involved were both industrial firms in the Fortune 500, one metals
manufacturer and one oil producer, (2) recent changes in senior management had led
to an increased focus on accountability and observable results in all training programs,
and (3) there was a strong need for team leadership training for inter-departmental
project leaders in the metals firm and safety review project leaders in the oil producer.
It should be noted that both organizations expected team leadership training to result in
observable improvements in leader performance. The improvements should be evident
to individual participants and their respective managers after the training, and confirmed
by comparison of pre-, post-measures of team leadership behaviors.
The assessment and development protocol using the LGD, as described above, was ideally
suited for use with both of these organizations. Each application involved groups of 18-
20 participants in a week-long program. LGD taping occurred on the morning of day
one (followed by assessment and coaching sessions) and the afternoon of day four. Days
two and three consisted of experiential learning modules addressing the team leadership
topics identified in step 7 of the protocol methodology above. Day five was devoted to
assessing performance in the second LGD and conducting final coaching sessions.
Three trainer/facilitators shared the workload during the five day sessions. This allowed
for individualized coaching/consultation for each participant.
Proprietary concerns in both organizations precluded publication of program evaluation
results. Internal assessment did confirm the following: (1) statistically significant
improvement in mean overall LGD scores from day one to day four, (2) participant
confirmation of self-assessed improvement in team leadership behaviors, (3) participant
satisfaction with the training program, and (4) documentation by participant supervisors of
observed improvements in team performance three months after the training program.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 13

The third business application involved an international chemical manufacturer with

operations in the United States. At one of their unionized Midwest plants, an expansion
was planned to produce a new chemical compound. Meetings between the company
and the union about how to staff and structure the new facility yielded an agreement
to organize workers in functional teams, led by union members to be called team
leaders.
The creation of this new position at a higher pay rate generated considerable interest
among union membership at the plant, with over 100 applications submitted. Given the
pivotal role that team leaders would play in the ultimate success of the new facility,
the company and union agreed to utilize a modified LGD protocol as the final factor
or hurdle to select and develop team leaders. While there were 12 initial openings for
team leaders, the two parties signed a memorandum of understanding to allow the top
rated 20 candidates to participate in the program, providing an additional pool of eight
trained team leaders for future openings.
The plant’s HR manager and union vice-president received training as assessors and
worked with the facilitator in a 3-person team to evaluate individual performance in the
LGD and function as coaches. A total of 63 candidates were assessed in the initial LGD.
The top 12 were recommended for positions in the new facility, while the top 20 were
selected to participate in the full LGD protocol described above. Thus, 20 union members
were trained in how to evaluate their own performance in the LGD, as well as that of an
assigned partner. Self and coaching assessments were completed, followed by meetings
with one of the three program raters to discuss performance and improvement plans. The
20 participants received the interactive team leader topical training modules mentioned
above, over a one month period, followed by the second LGD and critiques.
As with the first two organizations discussed earlier in this section, proprietary concerns
precluded publication of any evaluation results. Nevertheless, the program was very
successful in a number of ways. The union was pleased to have been included as a
full partner in making staffing decisions about the new facility and participating in
the candidate rating process. The 20 applicants who completed the LGD protocol: (1)
demonstrated statistically significant improvement from time one to time two in team
leadership performance and (2) reported self-assessed improvement in performance
capabilities and high levels of satisfaction with the program.
Academic Application
The LGD protocol described in this paper is utilized in The School of Business and
Economics at Indiana University Northwest as the primary vehicle for providing
team leadership education to students. The use of this protocol arose as a result of two
major factors. First an employer survey of major firms in Northwest Indiana indicated
their strong preference for business graduates with well-developed team leadership
skills. Based upon these survey results a new course was developed and required of all
business majors focusing on team leadership and teamwork, using the LGD protocol
as its foundation.
14 International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010

The second important factor influencing the decision to utilize the protocol was the
emphasis placed by AACSB (the premier accrediting body for collegiate business schools)
on rigorous, behaviorally–based/competency–based evaluation of learning outcomes at
its member institutions. Given the central role of the team leadership/teamwork course
in the business school, it was imperative to employ a sound evaluation methodology to
monitor student progress. The complete LGD protocol described in this paper is used in
the senior–level team leadership/teamwork course to specifically address the needs of
both employers and the AACSB. Approximately 25-30 students enroll in the course each
semester. A 4-year study is currently underway to collect and analyze team leadership
ratings for the first and second LGD’s from students, their student coaches, and the
instructor. At the conclusion of the fourth year, with a sufficiently large sample, the
formal evaluation will be written-up and submitted for publication. Informal observations
by the instructor and standard course evaluation data provide preliminary evidence that
the LGD protocol is facilitating improvement in team leadership capabilities and has
been well received by students.
Future Research
Empirical and publishable research is needed on the LGD protocol presented in this paper
to rigorously evaluate its effectiveness as a training/education methodology to assess and
develop team leadership behavioral skills. Companies that use the LGD protocol should
agree to allow for the publication/sharing of their evaluation results.
Comprehensive evaluation criteria in business settings should include (1) statistical
comparisons of participant leadership role behaviors in the first and second LDG’s
(2) pre-, post-measures of team leader effectiveness by teammates and superiors for
individuals trained using the LGD protocol, as well as matched control subjects who
were not trained, (3) pre-, post-measures of overall team effectiveness for trained vs.
untrained team leaders, and (4) participant self-ratings of team leadership effectiveness
and satisfaction with the protocol.
As mentioned above, rigorous evaluation research is presently being conducted on the
impact of the LGD protocol on business majors. Once completed, it will provide answers
to questions about the effectiveness of the protocol in educating students about essential
team leader behaviors, as called for by both employers and the AACSB.

References
Bales, R. F. (1950) (a). A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interaction.
American Sociological Review, 15, 257-263.
Bales, R. F. (1950) (b). Interaction Process Analysis: Method for the Study of Small
Groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M. (1954). The Leaderless Group Discussion. Psychological Bulletin, 51,
465-492.
Benne, K. D. & Sheats, P. (1948) Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social
Issues, 4, 41-49.
International Journal of Management Vol. 27 No. 1 April 2010 15

Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964) The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf
Publishers.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S.M. (2006) What
Type of Leadership Behaviors are Functional in Teams? A Meta-Analysis. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Casio, W. F. (2006) Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Work Life,
Profits, 7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Fleishman, E.A., Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S. J., Levin, K. Y., Korotkin, A. L., & Hein,
M. B. (1991) Taxonomic Efforts in the Description of Leader Behavior: A Synthesis
and Functional Interpretation. Leadership Quarterly, 4, 245-287.
Hobson, C.J. & Kesic, D (2002) A Behavioral Framework for Skills Assessment and
Development in Teamwork Training. International Journal of Management, 19 (2),
147-154.
Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S. B. (2008) Leadership and the Fate of Organizations.
American Psychologist, 63 (2), 96-110.
Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill
Stogdill, R. M. & Coons, A. E. (1957) Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Thompson, L. L. (2008) Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 3rd ed., Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.
Thornton, G. C. III & Rupp, D.E. (2003) Simulations and Assessment Centers. In J.
Thomas (Ed.) Industrial and Organizational Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Thornton, G. C. III & Rupp, D.E. (2006) Assessment Centers and Human Resource
Management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Yuki, G., Gordon, A. & Taber, T. (2002) A Hierarchical Taxonomy of Leadership
Behavior: Integrating a Half Century of Behavior Research. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 9 (1), 15-32.
Copyright of International Journal of Management is the property of International Journal of Management and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.