There are several academic papers that have attempted to quantify the importance of leadership attributes.
I have copied what I consider to be the relevant portions of the research below.I have linked the research paper for those who are interested in reading this.The results suggest that social cohesion and social networking are correlated with a teams success.The role of team leaders is to promote these attributes.
The Relationship Among Athlete Leadership Behaviors and Cohesion in Team Sports
Diana J.E. Vincer and Todd M. Loughead, University of Windsor
This study examined the influence of athlete leadership behaviors on perceptions
of team cohesion. The participants were 312 athletes from 25 varsity and club level
teams. Each participant completed the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron,
Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) that assessed cohesion and the Leadership Scale
for Sports (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) that assessed athlete leadership behaviors.
Overall, it was found that individual perceptions of Training and Instruction, and
Social Support positively influenced all four dimensions of cohesion (ATG-T,
ATG-S, GI–T, GI-S). Furthermore, Autocratic Behavior was negatively associated
with the four dimensions of cohesion. Finally, Democratic Behavior was positively
related to ATG-T. These findings provide researchers, sport psychology consultants,
athletes, and coaches with some initial evidence that it is important to foster
the development of athlete leader behaviors to influence the team environment.
Note. ATG-T = Individual attractions to the group-task, ATG-S = Individual attractions to the groupsocial,
GI-T = Group integration-task, GI-S = Group integration-social. TI = Training and instruction,
DB = Democratic behavior, AB = Autocratic behavior, SS = Social support, PF = Positive feedback.
The first aspect pertaining to the results is the positive relationship between
athlete leader behaviors and cohesion. Based on the operational definitions of the
subscales of cohesion and leadership, the results suggested that athlete leaders who
demonstrated leadership behaviors toward improving performance through rigorous
training and instruction and showed an increased amount of concern for the team
member’s welfare had teammates who perceived a higher sense involvement in the
productivity of team goals, of personal acceptance and social interactions within
their team, of similarity, closeness, and unity within the group around the team’s
task objectives, and to their team as a social unit.The results of the present supplement the Dupuis et al. (2006) finding by suggesting that the leadership behaviors of Training and Instruction, and
Social Support can positively influence a team’s cohesiveness both at a task and
social level. Thus, it is important for athlete leaders to use high levels of Training
and Instruction, and Social Support behaviors.
A second point pertains to the negative relationship between the athlete leader
behavior of Autocratic Behavior and all four dimensions of cohesion. Previous
coaching leadership research has shown that this leadership behavior is negatively
related to both task and social cohesion (e.g., Gardner et al., 1996). Thus, the athletes’
perception of their cohesiveness (i.e., team’s productivity toward their goals
and their personal acceptance within the team) was lower when they felt their athlete
leaders taking a more authoritative role in the decision making process. This negative
relationship between Autocratic Behavior and cohesion (task and social) may
be viewed from a cohesion perspective as the athletes feeling a decreased sense
of closeness, bonding, personal involvement, and personal acceptance with their
teammates. Consequently, it would appear that autocratic type of athlete leadership
behaviors can detract from a team’s cohesiveness.
TIES, LEADERS, AND TIME IN TEAMS: STRONG INFERENCE ABOUT NETWORK STRUCTURE’S EFFECTS ON TEAM VIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
PRASAD BALKUNDI State University of New York at Buffalo
DAVID A. HARRISON The Pennsylvania State University
(PDF available at Research gate https://www.research...nd_performance)
How do members’ and leaders’ social network structures help or hinder team effectiveness? A meta-analysis of 37 studies of teams in natural contexts suggests that teams with densely configured interpersonal ties attain their goals better and are more committed to staying together; that is, team task performance and viability are both higher.Further, teams with leaders who are central in the teams’ intragroup networks and teams that are central in their intergroup network tend to perform better. Time sequencing, member familiarity, and tie content moderate structure-performance connections. Results suggest stronger incorporation of social network concepts into theories about team effectiveness.
Edited by Eris, 15 September 2018 - 05:26 PM.