in 29 shared leadership scores for the four strategic leadership dimensions. In this measure the team
leader was excluded, in order to identify the discrepant influence of leadership behavior by team
members (versus the influence of the formal team leader). In order to make sure that the shared
leadership scores were not dominated by a single team member, the standard deviation on the four
strategic leadership dimensions were checked in terms of their correlation with the team effectiveness
scores. In case of no strong correlations, one could conclude that the shared leadership measure
captured a collective effort
Team effectiveness
In this study four team effectiveness measures were considered, in line with the strategic leadership
model: i.e. Team innovation as an effectiveness score for Organizational creativity, Team efficiency
for Operational efficiency, Market responsive orientation for Client centricity and Market proactive
orientation for Business development. These four measurements were based on previously validated
measures of these constructs, i.e. Team innovation (De Dreu, 2002), Team efficiency (Hoegl &
Gemuenden, 2001), Responsive and Proactive market orientation (Narver et al., 2004). In order to
have equal measurements and to keep the survey manageable (including all leadership items,
intermediary variables and the individual outcome score of job satisfaction) three items were kept for
each dimension. All items were answered by the formal team leader and all team members, resulting
in an average team score for the four Team effectiveness measures. Items were scored on a 5-point
scales (1=strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). ([HPSODU\LWHPVZHUHDVIROORZV³2XUWHDPRIWHQ
LPSOHPHQWVQHZLGHDVWRLPSURYHWKHTXDOLW\RIRXUSURGXFWVDQGVHUYLFHV ́ 7HDPLQQRYDWLRQ ³2XU
team works in a team-efficient ZD\ ́ 7HDPHIILFLHQF\ ³2XUWHDPFRQVWDQWO\PRQLWRUVRXUOHYHORI
FRPPLWPHQWDQGRULHQWDWLRQWRVHUYLQJFXVWRPHUQHHGV ́ 7HDP5HVSRQVLYHPDUNHWRULHQWDWLRQ DQG
³2XU WHDP KHOSV FXVWRPHU DQWLFLSDWH GHYHORSPHQWV LQ WKHLU PDUNHWV ́ 7HDP SURDFWLYH PDUNHW
orientation).
9.5 RESULTS
9.5.1 CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES AND INTRACLASS CORRELATIONS
A confirmatory analysis was conducted on the sample in order to confirm the factor structure of the
strategic leadership dimensions that has been found and confirmed in the previous studies. Controlling
for the fact that some focal managers were rated by more than one colleague, the confirmatory
analysis resulted in X^2 = 441.361, df = 164, p<.01, CFI = .914, TLI = .900, AIC = 22728.126, SRMR
= .049, RMSEA = .062. Table 9.3 shows the interreliability scores as well as the interrater agreement
scores to check whether aggregation is allowed.