LODJ 34,3. Abstract. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

Transcription

1 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at LODJ 34,3 204 Received 26 May 2011 Revised 17 October October 2011 Accepted 19 October 2011 coaching: servant leadership and gender implications Angus J. Duff School of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada Abstract Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider theoretically the relationships between performance, a servant leadership style and leader gender, drawing from Hackman and Wageman s theory of team coaching to suggest a servant leadership style being optimally suited to support the different leadership roles enacted at different stages of the performance cycle. While recent research suggests that female managers may be more likely to enact a servant leadership style, team and process-level considerations have yet to be addressed. This paper aims to theoretically address this topic. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual based on theory with literature review. Findings Because the theory of team coaching suggests differential leader task delivery at various points in the coaching process, servant leadership s individually-centred approach is suited to team coaching, particularly in the execution of performance coaching. Practical implications Since research suggests that women are more likely to employ a servant leadership style, this paper explores whether gender plays a role in team coaching. Originality/value This study makes a novel contribution by considering the influence of a servant leadership style at the leadership process and team levels. Keywords Team coaching,, Servant leadership, Gender, Team learning Paper type Research paper Leadership & Organization Development Journal Vol. 34 No. 3, 2013 pp r Emerald Group Publishing Limited DOI / Introduction The nature of work in the developed world continues to shift away from manufacturing roles typified by clearly defined objectives and requirements to services and knowledge-based roles where the nature of the work itself involves a much greater degree of variation and interpretation based on changing role, client, or environmental needs (Oldman and Hackman, 2010). As a result of these changes, teams are pervasive in organizations (Campion et al., 1993; Mathieu et al., 2008; Stewart, 2006). The nature of teamwork requires very different approaches to leadership, to support both the execution of work and the effective interaction between team members (Marks et al., 2001). These structural changes in organizations have increased the importance of effective leader coaching and fostered a shift to the use of leadership styles aimed at developing positive supportive relationships between leaders and team members and positive working relations amongst team members (Mathieu et al., 2008). As a result, relational leadership styles including transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), and more recently servant leadership (Crossman, 2010; Greenleaf, 1991; Russell and Stone, 2002) have risen in prevalence. Relational leadership styles which employ team coaching are especially important in an age where employees are distrustful of employers (Pekerti, 2010; Robinson, 1996), as demonstrated by low employee engagement. The author is indebted to Christopher Chan and four anonymous reviewers for their invaluable comments in developing and revising this manuscript.

2 Research suggests that only 26 per cent of US workers are actively engaged (Fleming et al., 2005), that only 14 per cent are highly engaged (Towers Perrin, 2006), and that low levels of engagement are also prevalent outside of the USA (Attridge, 2009). Given the importance of team coaching and relationally based leadership styles on supporting these changes in work, it is critical that we deepen our understanding of these phenomena. While the prevalence of coaching has increased and has been suggested to positively impact team effectiveness (Wageman, 2001), except for the many popular books and articles that extract lessons for team leaders from athletics coaches, relatively little has been published that specifically addresses the coaching of task-performing teams (Hackman and Wageman, 2005, p. 269). Prior research on coaching has explored ways in which leaders instil common purpose in teams (Kozlowski et al., 1996), how leaders develop team members interpersonal skills (Manz and Sims, 1987) and how leaders monitor and provide feedback on team-member behaviour and performance (Komaki, 1986). Theory has recently suggested team coaching as a process where the timing of coaching interventions contributes to coaching effectiveness (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Accordingly, the first research question this paper seeks to consider is how the temporal role of critical coaching milestones (beginning, middle, and end) established in Hackman and Wageman s (2005) theory of coaching impacts coaching effectiveness. This paper considers critical milestones by operationalizing work milestones as beginning, middle, and end using a performance cycle including goal setting, feedback, and performance appraisal (Budworth and Mann, 2011; Latham and Mann, 2006; Locke and Latham, 1990). As Hackman and Wageman (2005) suggest, when work teams operate in a continuous rather than project capacity, the arbitrary demarcation of work cycles based on beginning, middle, and end of a work year should act as the intervals representing the most effective coaching opportunities for leaders. Second, this paper considers the impact of alternate forms of leadership styles including transactional, transformational, and servant leadership on team coaching. While the theory of team coaching suggests that team coaching will entail differentiated coaching at the beginning, middle, and end of a work cycle, the consideration of which leadership styles are suited to these differentiated coaching requirements is thus far underexplored. Transactional leadership is a task-based contingent reward model of leadership centred on inducing behaviour through rewards for task accomplishment or consequences for task failure, or taking corrective action to address work problems (Avolio et al., 1999). Transformational leadership is a person-based leadership style centred on instilling subordinates with a shared purpose, with the aim of directing behaviour in the accomplishment of leader-set goals (Eagly et al., 2003). While transformational leadership theory (Bass, 1985) and empirical research (Burke et al., 2006) converge on a recognition that person-centred leadership approaches support team effectiveness, servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991) has only recently been validated as a measurable construct distinct from transformational leadership (Liden et al., 2008; Parolini et al., 2009). Servant leadership is a person-centred leadership approach where leaders support employees in the achievement of their full potential by engaging in personal relationships with subordinates in order to understand and support their personal motivations (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008). Servant leadership is characterized by an approach whereby leaders place team and team-member success ahead of the leader s personal motivations (Greenleaf, 1991; Liden et al., 2008). coaching 205

3 LODJ 34,3 206 While servant leadership has been empirically validated to be distinct from transformational leadership, the consideration of the impact of servant leadership is a thus far underexplored area of research (Liden et al., 2008; Russell and Stone, 2002; Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Recognizing the focus of relational support for team members inherent in servant leadership, research considering servant leadership may deepen our understanding of how different leadership styles impact team coaching. Accordingly the second research question this paper seeks to consider is the impact of servant leadership on team coaching. Finally, with servant leadership centred in more altruistic and supportive behaviour than other forms of leadership (Chan et al., 2011; Greenleaf, 1991; Liden et al., 2008), and social role theory suggesting that social norms encourage women to be cooperative and men to be individualistic (Eagly, 1987), the adoption of servant leadership may be more likely for female managers than for male managers. While person-based approaches such as transformational leadership have been theoretically and empirically suggested to be better suited to female leaders (Burke and Collins, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003; Karakowsky and Miller, 2006; Vinkenburg et al., 2011), servant leadership thus far has not been considered from the perspective of leader gender. This is not surprising recognizing the relative infancy of servant leadership research (Liden et al., 2008). As such, the third research question considered is the impact of gender on the propensity to adopt a servant leadership style. In doing so, this work builds on the work of Eagly et al. (2003) and research suggesting that female leaders be more likely to engage in service behaviour (Arnold and Loughlin, 2010; Fridell et al., 2009) or demonstrate compassion (Sarros et al., 2006) by considering team and situational considerations for the application of servant leadership, thus far unaddressed in organizational research. This consideration may provide further evidence of the benefits to organizations realized through increased female participation in leadership roles. Figure 1 integrates the three research questions into a conceptual model. The following section first reviews the theory of team coaching (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). It then provides operational definitions of coaching effectiveness based in team coaching theory, and considers performance in order to provide a Leadership style transactional transformational servant P2a P2b Gender P3 Figure 1. Conceptual model of propositions timing P1 Team effectiveness

4 theoretical basis to develop propositions regarding the impact of the timing of performance interventions on team effectiveness. This paper then considers transactional, transformational, and servant leadership and draws from Hackman and Wageman s (2005) definition of team effectiveness to suggest how these three distinct leadership styles moderate the relationship between the timing of performance interventions and team effectiveness. Finally, social role theory is considered to suggest the moderating role of gender on the propensity to adopt either a transactional, transformational, or servant leadership style. coaching 207 Team coaching Team coaching theory (Hackman and Wageman, 2005) defines team coaching as the direct interaction with a team intended to help members make coordinated and taskappropriate use of their collective resources in accomplishing the team s work (p. 269). This differs from other variations of coaching, characterized as individual or executive coaching, as a result of a processual focus on task accomplishment of teams realized through the individual contributions of team members. By focusing on the way in which coaching needs to be carried out in order to optimize the output of the team, team coaching shifts from a focus on fostering employee relations for its own sake, to the process by which team coaching supports the achievement of team goals. Team coaching builds on and yet is distinct from both coaching and executive coaching. The key differential is the level of measurement, with coaching focused at the individuallevel goals, executive coaching aimed to meet organizational-level goals, and team coaching focused on the support of team-level goals. The prevalence of coaching as a leadership style to support employee performance is pervasive (Aguinis, 2009), increasing in popularity ever since Hershey and Blanchard (1977) introduced the concept of situational leadership. The central tenet of situational leadership is that situational factors regarding an employee s knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) and the complexity of the task at hand drive requirements for differentiated leadership styles. Situational leadership suggests that a coaching leadership style is considered appropriate to lead employees characterized as having some competency and relatively low commitment (Blanchard et al., 1985). In essence, in this model coaching has been suggested as the optimal approach to build organizational commitment in workers through leadership which provides both task direction and social support. Research lends empirical support to this theory, suggesting that effective coaching improves team performance (Wageman, 2001). The aim of coaching, a technique employed by managers in the of their staff, is to support behavioural development in the achievement of individual goals (Leimon et al., 2005). Coaching is an individual-level practice which has been conceptualized as a facilitative role, whereby the leader encourages and motivates the employee to improve performance through self- (Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999). The primary differentiator between coaching and team coaching, however, is that team coaching s primary focus is at the team level, motivating the realization of team goals, rather than individual goals. However, because team goals are comprised of the culmination of individual performance, the practice of team coaching is to motivate performance at both the individual and team level, with goal definition established at the team rather than the individual level (Mink et al., 1993). Coaching is not to be confused with executive coaching (Kilburg, 2000; Kampa- Kokesch and Anderson, 2001; Orenstein, 2007). Executive coaching is similar to coaching in that the aim of executive coaching is to support behavioural development

5 LODJ 34,3 208 in the achievement of goals. However, executive coaching s primary focus is at the organizational rather than individual level. For clarity, while a leader receives executive coaching in order to improve their personal performance, they participate in executive coaching to address leader behavioural changes in order to positively impact organizational performance. While coaching and executive coaching operate at individual and organizational levels, respectively, the focus of team coaching is at the meso level. However, because team coaching theory operates at the meso level, and team effectiveness stems from the cumulative task contributions of team members, the operationalization and measurement of team coaching is inherently multi-level, with coaching occurring at the coordinated individual level, and team effectiveness measured at the group level. Hackman and Wageman (2005) provide an operational definition of team effectiveness. They suggest that team effectiveness is comprised of three dimensions: the task performance of the team, the social processes engaged which maximized the effectiveness of the group, and the extent to which the group experience positively contributes to the learning and well-being of individual team members. Team coaching theory (Hackman and Wageman, 2005) considers team coaching from the perspective of the purpose of coaching, the timing of coaching interventions, and the environmental conditions supporting or constraining coaching, all aimed at supporting the achievement of team goals. It suggests that effective coaching encompasses three distinct manager roles: first, fostering team members collective motivation; second, consultation regarding interim task accomplishment and future objectives; and finally, developmental education (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Team coaching theory builds on the empirical work of Gersick (1988) which lend support to the suggestion that temporal milestones have a motivational influence on team performance. Team coaching theory then considers the temporal milestones in team which act as critical moments for leadership to be motivational, consultative, or educational in the support of team members. Team coaching theory suggests that team coaching should be most effective when executed at the beginning, middle, and end of a work cycle, with coaching at the beginning milestone being motivational, coaching at the middle interval being consultative, and coaching at the end of the work cycle being developmental. Hackman and Wageman also suggest that teamwork has logical temporal periods, either created by the work itself which may have a clear project end-point, or through the use of artificially created markers such as financial quarters or year-ends. They suggest that such temporal work demarcation helps to frame work delivery to clarify work definition and work assessment. coaching is the multi-step process employed in organizations to manage employee performance (Smither and London, 2009). While the nature of the work will dictate the appropriate temporal period, a common performance cycle for ongoing work in an enterprise is a one-year cycle. incorporates multiple contact points between managers and subordinates (Budworth and Mann, 2011). Like team coaching theory, performance also provides a temporal framework that provides a temporal delineation of work. These include goal setting, feedback, and performance appraisal (Latham and Mann, 2006). The application of team coaching theory to performance would suggest that the leadership approach supporting goal setting should be motivational, feedback should be consultative, and performance evaluation should support employee development.

6 Team coaching theory suggests that the beginning of a work cycle, be that a project, work term, or other systemic demarcation of a work period, marks a critical point for team effectiveness as it marks an interval where team-member efficacy is threatened by competing motivations of team members to pursue different interests (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Goal-setting theory (Locke and Latham, 1990) lends support to this notion and provides guidance on ways to unify idiosyncratic team-member objectives. Goal-setting theory suggests that goals act as an effective motivating force to encourage performance when goals are specific and difficult (Locke and Latham, 1990). Difficult and specific goals by their very nature require dialogue between the manager and his or her team. Recognizing that team coaching is a focused dialogue aimed at realizing team effectiveness, such would suggest that goal setting should be a critical interval for team coaching. Team coaching theory also suggests that the midpoint of a work cycle marks a critical opportunity for team coaching because it represents a time when managers can play a consultative role by raising visibility of team progress and gaps in goal achievement, as well as by refocusing effort in the accomplishment of team goals. The midpoint in work cycles have been suggested to play a critical interval, representing a point in the work cycle where clarity of realized accomplishments and team purpose lead to a renewed focus on task objectives (Gersick, 1988). As a result, feedback which occurs at this midpoint has been suggested as a critical interim process within the performance cycle suited to coaching (Latham and Mann, 2006). Finally, team coaching theory suggests that the end-point of a work cycle provides the third optimal point for effective team coaching. The end-point of a work cycle provides an ideal time for accurate self-reflection on the part of team members regarding their success, and provides an opportunity for learning which impacts future performance (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). It is for these reasons that team coaching at the end of work cycles is considered to assume a developmental form, providing visibility to team members of opportunities for future improvement. appraisal represents the end-point of a performance cycle (Latham and Mann, 2006). appraisal represents the individual-level performance assessment of team members (Aguinis, 2009; Latham and Mann, 2006), where the honest appraisal of performance supports perceptions of justice held by team members (Celani et al., 2008). Through the aggregation of individual teammember performance, performance appraisal is an evaluation of team performance at the end of a work period. While performance appraisal provides a logical end-point demarcation of work cycles, with the exception of project-based contractual work the application of performance is typically employed in the context of work cycles which continue after the completion of performance appraisal. As such performance appraisal marks the end of a work cycle and provides developmental feedback to assist in the preparation for the subsequent performance cycle. The application of Hackman and Wageman s theory suggests that at the end of a performance cycle the process of team coaching should entail an assessment of results as compared to performance goals, providing objective criteria for future development opportunities. The theory of team coaching suggests that the efficacy of coaching interventions depends not just on their focus, as discussed above, but also on the time in the group s life cycle when they are made (Hackman and Wageman, 2005, p. 274). Hackman and Wageman draw from extensive research on task and project to suggest that the timing of team coaching positively impacts the effectiveness of team coaching. coaching 209

7 LODJ 34,3 210 Their work also suggests that the ideal temporal milestones for team coaching are the beginning, middle, and end of a work cycle. Through the consideration of performance as a team coaching process with an instrumental beginning (goal setting), middle (feedback), and end (performance appraisal), such would suggest that the extent to which the actual performance coaching interventions align with the beginning, middle, and end of the work cycle, the greater the effectiveness of the coaching should be: P1. timing involving team coaching at the beginning (goal setting), middle (feedback), and end (performance appraisal) of the work cycle will be positively related to team effectiveness. Leadership styles Recognizing that team coaching entails the execution of the differentiated interactions with team members for optimal team coaching support to coordinate, motivate, or develop and help team members, a consideration of the impact of differing leadership styles in the effective delivery of team coaching is warranted. Leadership styles are categorized as goal centred (transactional), consultative (transformational), or supportive (servant). As leadership styles vary in their emphasis on monitoring and coaching task performance, instilling vision and motivation, and supporting team members, the extent to which goal setting, feedback, and performance appraisal are most effectively coached should differ by leadership style. Team coaching at the time of goal setting vs team coaching to provide feedback may require different leadership approaches, with the former focused on establishing and motivating a shared vision for the team, and the latter aimed at supporting employees through the coordination of resources towards the pursuit of such goals (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Team coaching at the end of a work cycle which is suggested to be developmental in purpose, may require an educational leadership approach which differs from either goal setting or consultative approaches. To consider the role of different leadership styles on the effectiveness of team coaching, this paper will first summarize three leadership styles: transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and servant leadership, and then consider propositions regarding the impact of leadership styles on team coaching at each of the three intervals considered, as well as the overall effectiveness of team coaching. In doing so this addresses concerns raised by Latham and Mann (2006) who identify that there is little or no empirical evidence as to who is most effective as a coach (Latham and Mann, 2006, p. 315, italics added). Latham and Mann explore the notion of who makes an effective coach from the perspective of the power relationship between the leader and subordinate. However, while the power relationship is important, it may be more critical to consider who makes an effective leader based on the leadership competencies required to elicit team behaviour. Transactional leadership, also referred to as traditional leadership, is characterized by a contingent reward relationship between a manager and subordinate where work effort on the part of the employee is motivated by positive rewards, or in order to avoid the consequences of negative reinforcement associated with manager criticism of the employee s performance (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998). Transactional leadership also entails a task-focused approach to leadership based in by problem resolution where managers monitor problematic work performance and intervene to resolve such situations (Avolio et al., 1999). These two variations of the

8 characterization of transactional leadership are termed contingent reward and by exception (Bass, 1985; Rowold and Heinitz, 2007). The essence of transactional leadership is a depersonalized task-based transaction between the manager and subordinate, with a focus on motivating employee behaviour through incentives and disincentives (Yammarino et al., 1997). Research findings on the effectiveness of transactional leadership on performance are mixed, with some researchers identifying a small positive relationship between transactional leadership and performance ( Judge and Piccolo, 2004) and some identifying a negative relationship (Yammarino and Bass, 1990). While transactional leadership has been demonstrated to enact performance when the extrinsic motivators are powerful enough to encourage performance, the impact of such exchanges are suggested to reduce intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999), leading to reduced team helping behaviour, critical to effective team performance (Hackman, 2002). Transformational leadership focuses on motivating employees through the solicitation of higher-order commitment (Bass, 1985). Where transactional leadership is characterized as a depersonalized exchange of employee services motivating behaviour through the use of incentives or consequences, transformational leadership seeks to develop self-motivated workers through the alignment of personal goals with organizational goals, operationalized as leadership that inspires rather than directs individuals (Avolio et al., 2009). As such, transformational leadership is considered a person-focused approach to leadership, differentiated from transactional leadership characterized as a task-focused approach (Burke et al., 2006). A key element of the motivational impact of transformational leadership is trust in the leader, which is developed through a leader s providing individualized consideration to team members in the support of team members execution of the vision instilled by the leader (Burke et al., 2006). Recent developments in leadership research have given rise to the consideration of servant leadership as an alternative person-centred leadership style (Liden et al., 2008; Schaubroeck et al., 2011). Servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1991) is a leadership approach characterized by a focus of the leader to support and develop the capabilities and effectiveness of subordinates to reach their highest potential (Russell and Stone, 2002). While transformational leadership centres on motivating workers to accomplish goals set by the leader, servant leadership focuses on support aimed at leaders supporting team members with both task-level and personal development support in order to facilitate employee success in both work accomplishment and career success. At the centre of servant leadership is the development of a personalized relationship between the manager and employee such that motivation, encouragement, and development opportunities are tailored to provide optimal support to employee effectiveness and development (Liden et al., 2008; Lord et al., 1999). Servant leadership has been suggested to be multi-dimensional, comprised of seven factors including emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first and behaving ethically (Liden et al., 2008). Recent meta-analytic research conducted by Burke et al. (2006) has considered the impact of leadership styles on team effectiveness and performance. Their findings suggest that task-related leadership behaviour such as transactional leadership accounted for 11 per cent of the variance in perceptions of team effectiveness and 4 per cent of the variance in team productivity, and that person-focused leadership including transformational leadership and consideration accounted for 13 per cent of coaching 211

9 LODJ 34,3 212 variance in perceptions of team effectiveness, 8 per cent of the variance in team productivity, and 31 per cent of the variance in team learning. Not only do these results suggest that person-focused leadership styles are important to team effectiveness and productivity, they suggest that person-focused coaching may be more important than task-related leadership (Burke et al., 2006), especially with service and knowledgebased work involving continuous learning. Recent research suggests that servant leadership is distinct from transformational leadership (Parolini et al., 2009; Schneider and George, 2011) and that it is positively related to team effectiveness. Research by Liden et al. (2008) suggest that servant leadership is distinct from transformational leadership and leader-member exchange, but correlates moderately to strongly with both of these constructs. Hu and Liden (2011), in their work looking at the relationship between servant leadership, team effectiveness, and team-level goals, found that servant leadership moderates the relationship between team goals and team effectiveness. Additionally, recent research suggests that servant leadership is positively related to organizational citizenship behaviour (Walumbwa et al., 2010) and team performance (Schaubroeck et al., 2011) and these relationships are partially or fully mediated by climate and justice perceptions as well as trust. Team coaching theory emphasizes the helping role of the leader in the support of team coordination and task execution (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Servant leadership, by enabling work conditions to encourage employee development in one work cycle, also makes a positive contribution to task execution in the subsequent performance cycle. Through the aggregation of the positive individual contributions to performance realized through engaging a servant leadership style, the capacity for increased team effectiveness may be realized. Accordingly, the degree to which leadership styles employed actively involve engagement in a supportive capacity of team members should be positively related to team effectiveness. Recognizing that transactional leadership de-emphasizes employee support, that transformational leadership involves employee support conditional on the support of leader goals and that servant leadership is aimed at providing support for workers unconditionally (Stone et al., 2004), it is suggested that leadership style will moderate team effectiveness, with transactional leadership having the least positive relationship, and servant leadership having the greatest positive relationship: P2a. Leadership style will moderate the relationship between performance and team effectiveness, with transactional leadership having the least positive effect, and servant leadership having the greatest positive effect. While it is expected that servant leadership will have the greatest positive influence on team effectiveness overall, the differential coaching requirements at each stage of the performance process suggest that different leadership styles are suited to each performance step. considered within the framework of team coaching theory suggests that effective coaching in the support of performance should at the time of goal setting, be motivational through the instillation of vision; at the time of providing feedback, be consultative to providing support for task accomplishment; and at the time of performance appraisal, be educational to support employee development. Based on the considerations of transactional, transformational, and servant leadership, such would suggest that

10 transformational leadership may be the optimal leadership style supporting goal setting due to its emphasis on instilling vision (Bass, 1985). However, because feedback is suggested to be consultative, it is suggested to incorporate both servant leadership which focuses on serving followers in the development of their potential (Russell and Stone, 2002) and a transformational leadership style which focuses on goal alignment (Burke et al., 2006). Feedback giving is supported by servant leadership by providing an assessment of how one is doing as well as by providing support to assist in future delivery. Feedback giving is supported by transformational leadership to reinforce the vision of what is still to be achieved. Finally, because performance appraisal involves the objective assessment of performance for developmental purposes, a servant leadership style which focuses on employee development may be most appropriate for this final step in the performance process (Russell and Stone, 2002): coaching 213 P2b. Leadership styles will impact performance coaching intervals differentially, with transformational leadership being optimal for goal setting, servant leadership being optimal for performance appraisal, and a balance of transformational and servant leadership being optimal for providing feedback. Gender and leadership While female representation in executive positions has remained relatively unchanged (Vinkenburg et al., 2011; Wohlbold and Chenier, 2011), changes in the make-up of the workforce have resulted in significant increases in the representation of women in positions. In 1972 only 18 per cent of and administrative positions in the USA were occupied by women. By 2002, that number had increased to 46 per cent (Eagly and Carli, 2003). In parallel, leadership theory and research have evolved from a focus on command and control approaches associated with transactional leadership, to more collaborative approaches to leadership characterized by transformational leadership (Bass, 1985). These changes are of particular importance as they place the leader more in the role of coach or teacher than previous models of leadership (Eagly and Carli, 2003, p. 809), changing not only the functional role of leadership, but potentially also changing perceptions of leadership from an agentic role to a more collaborative role. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly and Karau, 2002) suggests that gender roles are societal beliefs regarding appropriate male or female characteristics and behaviour (Karakowsky et al., 2004) and leadership traits (Eagly and Karau, 2002). These beliefs are more than beliefs about the attributes of women and men: Many of these expectations are normative in the sense that they describe qualities or behavioural tendencies believed to be desirable for each sex (Eagly, 1987, p. 13). Of particular importance to the consideration of leadership or team coaching is that, according to social role theory, norms representing communal qualities involving support for others are attributed to women, and norms of agentic qualities are attributed to men (Eagly, 1987). Social role theory suggests that as a result of socialization and social norms, women may be more likely to engage in person-focused leadership such as transformational or servant leadership (Eagly, 1987). Meta-analysis lends some support to this theory, with findings suggesting that compared to male managers, the leadership style demonstrated by female leaders is more transformational, and less transactional (Burke and Collins, 2001; Eagly et al., 2003). Male managers have been shown to be

11 LODJ 34,3 214 more likely than women to engage in by exception, typical of transactional leadership (Eagly et al., 2003). However, while gender has been explored as a moderating factor in the consideration of the propensity to engage in transformational leadership, organizational research has yet to consider the moderating role of gender on the propensity to engage in servant leadership even though research suggests that servant leadership is positively related to team effectiveness (Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Walumbwa et al., 2010).Acritical dimension of servant leadership is the emphasis placed on putting subordinates first (Liden et al., 2008). Social role theory, suggesting that women are socialized towards norms of communal support in a manner in which men are not, lends theoretical support to suggest that as with transformational leadership, female leaders should be more likely to employ a servant leadership style than male leaders. However, because servant leadership places even greater emphasis on supportive behaviours than does transformational leadership, the impact of gender on the propensity to engage in servant leadership should be greater than the variance of gender on transactional leadership. While women may be more likely to enact person-focused leadership styles such as transformational and servant leadership, the ability to enact such roles may also be a function of the extent to which women have access to leadership roles. Therefore, it is critical also to consider how perceptions of effective leadership, and the changes to these perceptions stemming from the need to effectively coach teams, have the potential to open pathways to women engaging in person-focused leadership styles. Role congruity theory suggests not only that women are socialized to behave in ways which are communal in nature, but that when women enact roles perceived by others as other than communal, women may face prejudice or ostracism as a result of the perceived conflict between societal role expectations and behaviour (Eagly and Karau, 2002). The transition of the role of leadership to a more relational role may shift gendered perceptions of leadership away from perceptions of alignment between the agentic male and leadership, to perceptions of a more androgynous idealization of leadership. The potential impact of this shift is twofold. First, because the reconceptualization of leadership competence as more androgynous narrows the gap between the gendered expectation of women to act in communal and supportive ways and the idealized perception of leadership qualities, in addition to suggesting that women may be more suited to such roles, women may face less barriers enacted based on the leadership behaviour being seen as incongruous with socialized female roles (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Second, changing perceptions of the role of leadership is of critical importance recognizing that men and women continue to maintain different perceptions of what constitutes effective leadership (Muchiri et al., 2011), young people continue to make career selection decisions based on congruence with gendered role expectations (Evans and Diekman, 2009), and working adults continue to perceive the demonstration of agentic behaviour as a critical factor in promotion to leadership positions (Vinkenburg et al., 2011). As a result, not only does the reconceptualization of the role of a leader as being more communal better lend itself to being performed by female leaders, changes in perceptions of the idealized role of leadership to fostering collaboration has the potential to provide better support to female leaders as well as increase the number of women drawn to leadership roles. As such, a shift to more person-centred leadership precipitated by the objective of effective team leadership may open perceptual

12 pathways to female representation in leadership roles, providing access to roles which women may be better socialized to perform than men: P3. Leader gender will moderate leader style, with female leaders demonstrating greater propensity towards the use of person-centred leadership approaches including transformational and servant leadership than male leaders. Practical implications The suggestions raised by this paper regarding the contingent application of different leadership styles to support team coaching have practical implications which impact leader development. First, this paper has suggested that the effectiveness of a performance process should be related to a manager s execution of team coaching activities at specific temporal periods, specifically at the beginning, middle, and end of a work cycle. This suggests that while day-to-day demands placed on managers may create situational conditions likely to postpone performance coaching, the extent to which managers deviate from optimal performance cycles may adversely impact team performance, thus undermining the purpose of performance. Second, through the consideration of team coaching theory suggesting the emphasis of different leadership styles supporting team coaching at critical coaching intervals, this paper lends theoretical support to the consideration of leadership as a dynamic process, rather than considering leadership as fixed sets of traits, functions, or behaviours (Kozlowski et al., 1996; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). While coaching as a practice gained momentum through the popularization of situational leadership (Hershey and Blanchard, 1977) centred on leaders tailoring their leadership style to accommodate differences in employee skill and motivation, the propositions considered by this paper suggest that a contingent leadership approach supporting team coaching might be best realized through a contingent leadership model tailored to the differential coaching requirements at different periods in work cycles. Third, the consideration of the socialization of female leaders to employ a servant leadership styles has both theoretical and practical implications. This suggests not only that women may be well-suited to leadership roles, but as a result of the changing nature of work being increasingly comprised of teamwork, women may be better socialized to assume team-based leadership roles than men. As well, the reconceptualization of leadership as requiring less agentic and more androgynous qualities has the potential to open access to leadership roles for women, both by reducing discrimination against women perceived to be enacting roles incongruent with gendered norms and by increasing the attractiveness of leadership roles to women as a result of better alignment between gendered norms and the perceived role of the leader. This work lends support for the development of servant leadership in organizations, suggesting that future leadership development research should explore how leaders develop a servant leadership style and the mechanisms by which leaders engage in leadership style boundary spanning in support of team coaching. This work may also suggests that team-based work may be better supported by leadership development initiatives which better develop servant leadership competencies in male leaders who may be socialized to engage in more task rather than person-focused leadership approaches. Finally, both the consideration of leadership style as contingent upon the performance process, and the consideration of female leaders as having a coaching 215

13 LODJ 34,3 216 greater predisposition towards engaging a servant leadership style have important implications for leader development. First, this would suggest that leadership development should focus on developing leaders capable of enacting a variety of leadership styles, and training managers on the effective application of different styles based on accommodating employee skills (Hershey and Blanchard, 1977), but rather on the differing coaching objectives associated with the process of leading groups. Second, the emphasis on servant leadership may suggest that leadership development for all leaders may be enhanced though the heightened emphasis of competencies such as empathy and service. While traditional leadership competencies such as decisiveness and action are associated with male socialization emphasizing independence, this paper suggests the reconceptualization of leadership based on more androgynous competencies. While the consideration of social roles theory suggests that women may be more likely to be predisposed to using a servant leadership style, it also suggests that men may be more predisposed to employ a transactional approach. As such, leadership development may need to integrate traditionally male and female competencies in all leaders, while training managers on when to employ different styles according to the specific requirements of different stages in team leadership. Suggestions for future research The exploratory nature of this paper gives rise to a number of suggestions for future research. First, while this paper has proposed a model (Figure 1) considering the relationship between performance, team effectiveness, leadership style, and leader gender, this work has yet to be empirically validated. Longitudinal field research following the performance cycle in an organization is ideally suited to this research. However, alternate experimental research designs may also be suited to the consideration of the underexplored phenomena of team coaching (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Second, recognizing that effective team coaching may be best served by different leadership styles at different periods, future research should theoretically and empirically consider leadership development based on the contingent application of leadership styles. While traditional approaches to leadership development have centred on fixed leadership styles, or situational leadership focused on leadership tailored to employee KSAs, future leadership development research may instead consider leadership which is contingent on the process of managing groups. This consideration of leadership as a process, requiring leaders to assume differential roles employing differential leadership styles, has the potential to fully explicate the multi-dimensionality of leadership. Finally, the notion of leadership styles which adapt to meet different team coaching requirements may also have practical implications for another emerging leadership style, authentic leadership (Walumbwa et al., 2008). Walumbwa et al. (2008) suggest that authentic leadership is comprised of self-awareness, relational transparency, internalized moral perspective, and balanced processing. Relational transparency and internalized moral perspective are each premised on employee perceptions of consistency of leader behaviour. An authentic leader says exactly what he or she means (p. 121) and demonstrates beliefs that are consistent with actions (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 121). However, should a manager exhibit different leadership styles to support contextual requirements, this may have implications for employees perceptions of leader authenticity. As such, future team coaching theory research should consider

14 whether differential support requirements positively or negatively affect perceptions of leader authenticity. Conclusion This paper has considered performance, employed by organizations and leaders to identify performance goals, to monitor and coach performance, and to evaluate performance, as a contextual condition in which to consider the application of Hackman and Wageman s (2005) theory of team coaching. In so doing, this paper has proposed that the different support requirements associated with performance coaching requires different leadership styles at each stage of the performance process. Transformational leadership, focused on setting and inspiring vision, has been suggested to be optimally suited to goal setting. A balance of servant leadership, which focuses on providing feedback for positive developmental purposes, and transformational leadership which inspires following a vision, is suggested to best support providing feedback. Servant leadership, focused on future development through objective performance assessment, is suggested as the optimal leadership style for conducting performance appraisal. Based on the multidimensionality and empathetic focus of servant leadership, this paper suggests that servant leadership may constitute the most effective overall leadership approach to support performance coaching for teams. Additionally, recognizing that servant leadership employs a more empathetic- and support-oriented approach than transactional or transactional leadership, and that social role theory suggests that women are socialized to act in more empathetic and socially supportive ways, this paper has also suggested that female leaders may be more predisposed to engaging a servant leadership style. The implications for leadership development in developing leaders with a range of leader styles including servant leadership have been considered. coaching 217 References Aguinis, H. (2009), Management, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Arnold, K.A. and Loughlin, C. (2010), Individually considerate transformational leadership behaviour and self sacrifice, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp Attridge, M. (2009), Measuring and managing employee work engagement: a review of the research and business literature, Journal of Workplace and Behavioral Health, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M. and Jung, D.I. (1999), Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O. and Weber, T.J. (2009), Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Blanchard, K.H., Zigarmi, P. and Zigarmi, D. (1985), Leadership and the One Minute Manager: Increasing Effectiveness through Situational Leadership, Morrow, New York, NY. Budworth, M.-H. and Mann, S.L. (2011), : where do we go from here?, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E. and Halpin, S.M. (2006), What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp