Despite the many technological advances in the different areas of our economy; one fact remains clear, the need for individuals to carry out specific work is ever-present, and so is the need for teams to complete some of these tasks. With this brings a set of problems that are only being aggravated by the lack of workers. To complicated things even more, the amount of turnover or lack of workforce participation is dwindling (Smith & Green, 2020). So how do we retain the necessary talent within the workforce? An important element in answering these questions is understanding the correlation between leadership and worker productivity. Just as important is understanding how cohesion between teams’ members brings success or failure, and how that that correlate to worker productivity (Gruman et al., 2016).
According to (Gruman & et. al., 2016, p. 3) leadership is defined as, “particular individuals exert influence on the goal achievement of others in an organizational context, in this sense, leadership is inherently social and is a special case of interpersonal influence in which individuals or groups follow the wishes of the leader” The correlation between leadership and productivity has been the subject of many studies, indicating that leadership is fundamental to any organization (Gruman et al., 2016). This should be an interest to all who seek to work for any organization, either as an employee or as a supervisor. More importantly, the need to communicate, understand the different factors that influence our behaviors, actions, and decision is important to those that are charged with leading others.
It is not necessary to have a leadership/supervisor role to know that there are benefits of what causes an employee to behave at work the way they do; or the attribution process to determine what drives them (Gruman et al., 2016). After all, from a supervisory point of view, we must know and understand what motivates and drives our workforce, to either perform or not perform, and if interventions are needed (Gruman et al., 2016). Often, when interventions are needed, it is because the situation has reached a point in which team cohesion has deteriorated. By virtue of responsibility, the leader is responsible for ensuring that this doesn’t occur and if it does occur that they provide the necessary intervention.
So why is cohesion so critical to individuals, and teams? According to, Gruman & et. al. (2016), there are two types of cohesion, task cohesion and social cohesion, that although interrelated, they are distinct. After all, cohesion is not linear but contain different interrelated factors. Within each of these distinct types of cohesion lies the ability determine the possible lack of performance. Being able to determine what factors within the cohesion concept affects a team can help implement the correct intervention strategy at the individual level, or team level. After all, no one person or persons are alike. So how does a leader play a role in cohesion?
There are different social factors that contribute to individual and team cohesion and ultimately to their performance. One of those elements is the type of leadership style. Gruman & et. al.(2016), point to two types of leadership, one being autocratic leadership, or the person who makes all the decision and does not delegate responsibility or authority. Naturally, this type of leadership style does not allow for the empowerment their subordinates or those who are perform the tasks. Another highlight to this type of leadership style is that studies have shown it is associated to lower level of task cohesion. Conversely, democratic leadership styles are related with higher levels of task cohesion. One of those reason is that a democratic leader allows for the input of others and allows for input to decision and policies (Gruman et al., 2016). Considering the different type of leadership, it is safe to postulate that task cohesion is strongly related to better performance.
Leadership often plays an important role in employees staying or leaving their current employers. After all, no one shoe fits all, consider that we are social individuals, and we are all different. Having an autocratic leader may pose a problem who is independent and self-sufficient; while this might be suitable for someone who prefers the least amount of responsibility. Conversely a democratic leader may not be a good fit for someone who requires more guidance. Does this imply employees should leave an organization if this occurs? I believe this is where leadership plays a huge role in understanding the internal and external factors of to understanding how retain talent.
Another important element is that we all seek to have a work environment that is free from psychological stressor for both those who lead and those led (Robertson & et. al., 2021). An element that I think is just as critical is team cognition or how those within a team share responsibility and how this leads to better team performance (Robertson & et. al., 202). After all, everyone would like to work for an organization that they enjoy working for or at the very least, don’t dread coming in to work. The correlation between team performance and stressors should be understood for those who are charged with the responsibility of leading as well as those who are part of a team or work within an organization. As no organization should have such a culture where things could become toxic, and work becomes dreadful and unbearable. If anything, from a financial perspective, the cost of retraining and rehiring someone can be of considerable cost.
Vassie C, Smith S, Leedham-Green K Factors impacting on retention, success, and equitable participation in clinical academic careers: a scoping review and meta-thematic synthesis.
BMJ Open 2020;10:e033480. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033480
Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2016). Applied social psychology : Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Wallis, A., Robertson, J., Bloore, R. A., & Jose, P. E. (2021). Differences and similarities between leaders and nonleaders on psychological distress, well-being, and challenges at work. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 73(4), 325-348. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000214
van Oortmerssen, L. A., Caniëls, M. C. J., Stynen, D., & van Ritbergen, A. (2022). Boosting team flow through collective efficacy beliefs: A multilevel study in real-life organizational teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52, 1030– 1044. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/jasp.12910