In order to obtain a broad and representative sample, 7 industries were selected. From these 7
industries, 35 teams were recruited consisting of 232 managers. 158 focal managers participated
(response rate=68%).
7 teams (20%) from consultancy services (33 focal managers)
7 teams (20%) from the fast moving consumer goods industry (35 focal managers)
6 teams (17%) from tertiary education and research industry (27 focal managers)
5 teams (14%) from the hi-tech industry (20 focal managers)
4 teams (11%) from the public sector (17 focal managers)
4 teams (11%) from financial service industry (19 focal managers)
2 teams (6%) from the health care industry (7 focal managers)
Average team size was 5 team members (ȝ=4.89, SD=1.92) Recognizing that teams can and do
sometimes have fuzzy boundaries (Mortensen & Hinds, 2002), the teams were screened for
consistency with the conceptualization of Guzzo and Dickson (1996), who defined teams as being
³PDGHXSRILQGLYLGXDOVZKRVHHWKHPVHOYHVDQGZKRDUHVHHQE\RWKHUVDVDVRFLDOHQWLW\ZKRDUH
interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a group, who are embedded in one or
more larger social systems (e.g. organization) and who perform tasks that affect others (such as
customers or co-ZRUNHUV ́(p.308).
The 158 focal managers rated their own leadership behavior and received 360-degree feedback on
their leadership behavior from a boss, peers and subordinates. In total, 565 raters were invited of
which 486 raters have participated (response rate=86 %).
124 superiors invited ± 108 participated (response rate superiors=87%)
230 peers invited ± 196 participated (response rate peers=85%)
211 subordinates invited ± 182 subordinates participated (response rate subordinates=86%).
With 158 focal managers the average rater group consisted of .78 (108/158) superior, 1.24 (196/158)
peer and 1.15 (182/158) subordinate. The reason underlying the relative small number of subordinates
was due to the negative connotation of the term subordinate, where the emphasis is on a hierarchical
structure. Focal managers stated to prefer to label individuals as peers (even though a hierarchical
relationship could be at play). This was not considered a limitation, as the ratings from superiors,
peers and subordinates on a focal manager were averaged. However, it did influence the sample size
for the study of subordinate¶ job satisfaction described in chapter eight.
61% of the focal managers ZDV PDOH 7KH DYHUDJH DJH RI WKH ³focal manager ́ ZDV42 years
(SD=9.83). 71% was Dutch. 14% held a function in General management, 11% in Finance, 11%in