January 10th, 2018
Article review – Leadership (conclusion)
Strengths and Weaknesses
This paper has various strengths. Firstly, is a well-outlined framework, with a presentation of supporting literature. Secondly, by providing the purpose of the paper clearly at the introduction, the paper allows the reader to follow on how subsequent discussions relate to the purpose. Thirdly, the paper appropriately presents its methodology and conducts data analysis sufficient to meet its study objectives. Finally, the paper’s strength lies in the discussions and conclusion part, where it does not only restate its purpose thus informing readers of its intent, but also summarizes the findings in light of the purpose, the limitations and alternative measurement-approaches to the one the paper took. The main weakness of the paper arises on its design part. By using a student sample, the outcomes of the paper may not reflect those of an organizational environment, thus, its external validity is limited.
Readability and Contribution to the Field of Organization Behaviour
Another strong aspect of the paper is its readability. By presenting the arguments in a simple, clear manner, and in a systematic fashion, the article is not only meant for advanced readers, but also learners at the undergraduate level. That is the case also for practitioners since the paper goes on to present limitations that could impede its findings’ integration into practice.
The paper’s contribution to the field of organizational behaviour is immense. Despite its sample limitation due to the convenience sampling, the paper presents antecedents to team performance that organizations need to take heed of. The paper’s findings on team cohesiveness are for instance supported by case studies (e.g. Al-Rawi, 2008) that link cohesiveness to member’s attitudes and value commitment .
Al-Rawi, K. (2008). Cohesiveness within teamwork: the relationship to performance effectiveness – case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(2), 92-106. doi: 10.1108/17537980810890284
Bartlett, J. E., Kortrlik, J. W. & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Informational Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1), 43-50. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from http://www.osra.org/itlpj/bartlettkotrlikhiggins.pdf
Cohen, A. R. (2004). Building a company of leaders. Leader to Leader,16-20. Retrieved February 21, 2011, from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109667888/PDFSTART
Judge, T.A. & Bono, J.E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-65.
Lim, B.C. and Ployhart, R.E. (2004).Transformational leadership: relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, pp. 610-21.
Roomkin, M., Rosen, S. & Dubbs, N. (1998), Human resources practices survey. Deloitte & Touche, New York, NY.
Stashevsky, S. & Koslowsky, M. (2006). Leadership team cohesiveness and team performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 63-74. Doi:10.1108/01437720610652844
Thorelli, H.B., Graves, R.L. & Lopez, J.C. (1995). INTOPIA Executive Guide, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tjosvold, D. &Yu, Z. (2004). Goal interdependence and applying abilities for team in-role and extra-role performance in China. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 98-111.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Types of designs. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved February, 2011 from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/destypes.php