Research suggests that when leaders, as servant leaders, focus on their followers’ needs, this can have a positive effect on organizational functioning. Yet results are inconsistent in establishing the strength of the relationships, limiting understanding of the theoretical impact and practical reach of the servant leadership (SL) construct. Using a quantitative meta‐analysis based on 130 independent studies, the current research provides evidence that SL has incremental predictive validity over transformational, authentic, and ethical leadership. Further, the link between SL and a range of individual‐ and team‐level behavioural outcomes can be partially explained by trust in the leader, procedural justice, and leader–member exchange. The paper also explores moderators to better establish SL's criterion‐related validity and to clarify the magnitude of effects across boundary conditions, such as research design, national culture, and industry. Practitioner points Servant leadership has predictive validity over other leadership approaches, and therefore, organizations would benefit by developing their current leaders into SLs. Organizations should aim to select SLs into influential positions: Training programmes and selection profiles and processes would need to be aligned and developed to capture attitudes and behaviours associated with SL inside and outside the organization. Servant leaderships should seek to create a culture that positively promotes the development of trust, fairness, and high‐quality leader–follower relationships, as these conditions collectively enable the effects of SL to be transmitted onto desirable follower outcomes.

The paper argues that the prevalence of the term "team" in healthcare makes the synthesis and advancement of the scientific understanding of healthcare teams a challenge. Future research therefore needs to better define the fundamental characteristics of teams in studies in order to ensure that findings based on real teams, rather than pseudo-like groups, are accumulated.

No abstract

Article ReuseUnless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. REAL TEAM AND CO-ACTING GROUP MEMBERSHIP 1 AbstractWhile theory on team membership is emerging, limited empirical attention has been paid to the effects of different types of team membership on outcomes. We propose that an important but overlooked distinction is that between membership of real teams and membership of coacting groups, with the former being characterized by members who report that their teams have shared objectives, structural interdependence and engage in team reflexivity. We hypothesize that real team membership will be associated with more positive individual and organizational level outcomes. These predictions were tested in the English National Health Service, using data from 62,733 respondents from 147 acute hospitals. The results revealed that individuals reporting the characteristics of real team membership, in comparison to those reporting the characteristics of co-acting group membership, witnessed fewer errors and incidents, experienced fewer work related injuries and illness, were less likely to be victims of violence and harassment, and were less likely to intend to leave their current employment.At the organizational level, hospitals with higher proportions of staff reporting the characteristics of real team membership had lower levels of patient mortality and sickness absence. The results suggest the need to clearly delineate real team membership in order to advance scientific understanding of the processes and outcomes of organizational teamwork.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the challenges that health care organizations face in nurturing and sustaining cultures that ensure the delivery of continually improving, high quality and compassionate care for patients and other service users. Design/methodology/approach – Based on an extensive review of the literature, the authors examine the current and very challenging context of health care and highlight the core cultural elements needed to enable health care organizations to respond effectively to the challenges identified. Findings – The role of leadership is found to be critical for nurturing high-quality care cultures. In particular, the authors focus on the construct of collective leadership and examine how this type of leadership style ensures that all staff take responsibility for ensuring high-quality care for patients. Practical implications – Climates for quality and safety can be accomplished by the development of strategies that ensure leaders, leadership skills and leadership cultures are appropriate to meet the challenges health care organizations face in delivering continually improving, high quality, safe and compassionate patient care. Originality/value – This paper provides a comprehensive integration of research findings on how to foster quality and safety climates in healthcare organizations, synthesizing insights from academic literature, practitioner reports and policy documents to propose clear, timely and much needed practical guidelines for healthcare organizations both nationally and internationally.

Each of the themes highlighted by Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, and Cohen (2012) offers a valuable theoretical lens for future research on teams, but we think fundamental issues first require attention. To respond to the demands posed by the changing landscape of teams, we need to reappraise what it is we are studying when we focus on teams working in organizations. We need a good map of the changing terrain, which we suggest can be provided by clearer definitions and operationalizations of what we mean both by ''teams'' and by what we call ''pseudo teams.'' We deal with these issues of definition and operationalization of teams and pseudo teams in turn in the following sections. Defining Real TeamsAt the outset, Tannenbaum et al. provide two well-cited definitions of ''team'' from the literature and conclude that most teams in research studies share a few key characteristics in common. However, a number of other equally valid and well-recognized definitions exist (e.g.

This study examines the relationship between a specific type of team climate for perceived organizational support; team perceived organizational support for teamwork training (team POS-TT); and its effects on the productivity and innovation of acute healthcare teams.Drawing on organizational support theory, we examine how this relationship emerges via the mediating mechanism of shared objectives. Using survey data from 88 teams based in 13 healthcare organizations across the United Kingdom, we found support for the indirect effects of team POS-TT via shared objectives, but not for the direct effect of team POS-TT, thus indicating a mediated relationship with team productivity and innovation. As predicted, through the satisfaction of important esteem and affiliation needs of team members, team POS-TT compelled teams to engage in the process of generating shared objectives, which, in turn, positively predicted team productivity and innovation. These findings contribute to the scant literature on POS as a form of team climate, and respond to recent calls to consider different types of POS by focusing on perceived support for teamwork training; an area which has particular relevance in the context of healthcare. Further, the study serves to extend understanding regarding exactly how team POS-TT impacts team outcomes via the specific process of shared objectives. We conclude with a discussion of these contributions to the literature and delineate several practical implications for leaders and managers in healthcare organizations.

Purpose Team coaching (TC) is a popular new addition to the team learning and development toolkit. However, the conceptualization of TC and the distinction between TC, team training, team development and team building interventions remains unclear. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The authors address this significant gap by abductively exploring how TC is conceptualised in practice (n=410). The authors survey practitioners engaged in delivering TC to ask how they would define TC and distinguish it from other team interventions. Findings A thematic analysis of the data reveals eight themes, which can be used to define TC and illustrate areas of overlap and distinctiveness with other team interventions. Research limitations/implications The absence of a clearly defined construct is hindering the development of a rigorous theory of TC. The contribution of the paper is, therefore, a clear and comprehensive definition of TC, which can be used by researchers and practitioners alike when working within the domain of TC. Originality/value The paper provides the first systematic exploration of a definition of TC in relation to alternative team interventions. By utilising an abductive approach in the research, the authors are able to capitalise on practitioner experience in this practice-led field.