


































Education, Society and Human Studies 
ISSN 2690-3679 (Print) ISSN 2690-3687 (Online) 

Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs 

34 

Original Paper 

How Team Player Styles Impacts Followership Behavior 

Tim O. Peterson
1*

, Claudette M. Peterson
2
 & Brian W. Rook

3
 

1 
Department of Management & Marketing, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA 

2 
School of Education, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA 

3 
Rook Consulting, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA 

* 
Tim O. Peterson, Department of Management & Marketing, North Dakota State University, Fargo, 

North Dakota, USA 

 

Received: April 15, 2024         Accepted: April 30, 2024         Online Published: May 14, 2024 

doi:10.22158/eshs.v5n2p34                       URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/eshs.v5n2p34 

 

Abstract 

This empirical research study examines the effect of Parker’s (2008) team player styles on followership 

behavior. While most research focuses on the team leader, most of the work accomplishments are 

attributed to the team players on the team. Of the four team player styles, only one, contributor 

significantly increases followership behavior. However, it does not add enough to raise the followership 

behavior into the exemplary range. Discussion of the findings is provided coupled with a post hoc 

analysis and ideas for future research. 

Keywords 

team player styles, followership behavior, team player impact 

 

1. Introduction 

Workplace teams were predicted to be the building blocks of organizations in the 21
st
 century (Senge, 

1990). Research on teams in the workplace has increased in recent years examining the team player, 

social interdependence, and organizational performance (Johnson & Johnson, 2005; Millhiser et al., 

2011; Parker, 2008; Taggar & Haines, 2006). This trend has paralleled the evolution of the construct of 

team player as organizations have emphasized the importance of the team player (Parker, 2008; 

Scarnati, 2001). Particularly, research on the impact of team players on an organization demonstrated a 

critical difference in performance between high-performing teams and other teams (Katzenbach & 

Smith, 1993). 

Based on social exchange theory, teams are interdependent, and success is reliant on the actions of 

other people (Blau, 1964). Moreover, teams involve social interdependence theory which asserts that an 

individual’s performance on a team is dependent upon the interactions between team members 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

35 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

(Deutsch, 1949). Parker’s (2008) definition of team bridges historical understanding with modern 

applications suggesting teams are “a group of people with a high degree of interdependence geared 

towards the achievement of a goal or completion of a task” (p.13). 

Parker’s definition of team shares similarities with followership, particularly with Chaleff’s (2009) 

definition of followership as an exchange of influence between people to achieve a shared goal. The 

exchange of influence is based on leader-member exchange wherein relationships between leaders and 

followers significantly impact the followers’ performance and contributions to the shared goals 

(Lindsey Hall et al., 2016; Xu et al., 2019). 

Followers who work on a team are contributors to the shared goal with their team members and leader. 

Parker (2008) has identified differing team player styles while Peterson et al. (2021) have identified 

differing levels of followership. The purpose of this research is to examine relationships between team 

player styles and followership scores. 

 

2. Literature Review 

According to Katzenbach and Smith (1993) a team is a small group of people with complementary 

skills who are committed to a shared purpose and a team approach for which they hold themselves 

mutually accountable. The complementary skills that the team members bring to the team are: technical 

skills, problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills, and managing skills. While there are countless 

differences in the people that encompass teams, there are also similarities that can categorize team 

players into common methods of interaction to achieve shared goals. Parker (2008) suggested that team 

players participate with a group through one of four styles to achieve a shared purpose. 

One of those team player styles is categorized as a Contributor. These team members are usually 

responsible, thorough, and reliable team members who focus on tasks and technical information. Their 

strengths lie in sharing information with the team and making sure every aspect of a project is completed 

on time. Parker (2008) says that contributors are task-oriented individuals who enjoy providing the team 

with good technical information. They do the assigned pre-work, they set high-performance standards, 

and they make effective and efficient use of resources. Similar to those team members who bring 

technical skills to the team (Katzenbach & Smith,1993). 

The second category of team player style is Collaborator. These individuals are generally 

forward-looking, goal-directed, and imaginative team members who focus on goals and the big picture. 

Collaborators make sure the project stays on track. According to Parker (2008), the collaborator is a 

goal-directed individual who sees the purpose of the team as central to its existence. However, the 

collaborator is also open to new ideas, willing to pitch in and work outside their defined role. Their focus 

is on the purpose of the team, not their personal recognition. Most likely these team members bring 

problem-solving skills (Katzenbach & Smith,1993) to the team with their ability to diverge and 

converse on solutions to problems the team faces to achieve the goals of the team. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

36 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The third category according to Parker is Communicator. These individuals are generally supportive, 

considerate, and tactful team members who focus on process and consensus building. These team 

players are dedicated to ensuring effective process management. Parker (2008) would say that the 

communicator is an effective listener and facilitator of involvement, conflict resolution, and consensus 

building. They bring interpersonal skills coupled with some managing skills (Katzenbach & 

Smith,1993). Since these individuals focus on the process or the way work is planned, resources are 

organized, how the work is implemented, and the way the work is monitored, they provide the 

managing skills needed by the team.  

The final category is Challenger. These individuals are generally honest, outspoken, and ethical team 

members who focus on questions regarding methods and goals. They are looking at the larger purpose 

of the team and continually asking why. Again Parker (2008) says the challenger is a team member who 

questions the goals, methods, and even the ethics of the team. They are willing to question the leader. 

They are very principled individuals. These individuals might bring technical skills (Katzenbach & 

Smith,1993) and because of their expertise, they might challenge the way a task is accomplished. They 

might bring problem-solving skills (Katzenbach & Smith,1993) and challenge either the creative 

portion of problem-solving or challenge the alternative selection process. Parker suggested these styles 

are not hierarchical, and one style is not greater than the others, rather they are diverse ways in which 

team players participate in achieving the shared purpose of the team. 

While Parker has suggested that no style is greater than others, researchers have suggested that teams 

focused on collaboration are more likely to have shared mental models. Burke et al. (2006) postulated 

that teams who have similar goals and work to support each other’s goals experience a higher level of 

team adaptation or collective performance. A modern study, however, reported that team adaptation was 

not significant in a team’s task performance (Yue et al., 2019). This would suggest that there are 

varying results in collaborator team player styles and team performance. 

Followership researchers have suggested that followers fall into three categories: low, moderate, and 

exemplary, wherein exemplary followers are high performers as team players (Peterson et al., 2021). 

Individuals with low followership are not committed to the shared purpose of the team and do not act 

out expectations with the intention of supporting the team or fulfilling the shared purpose. Gallup’s 

(Harter at al., 2009; Ott, 2007; Wagner & Harter, 2006) engagement level of active disengagement is 

similar to this type of follower. Actively disengaged individuals are described as employees who have 

intentions of doing more harm than good to the team and organization. This type of follower aligns 

with the commitment level that Etzioni (1961) labeled alienative committed. Alienative committed 

employees would not feel any commitment to the team or the purpose. 

Individuals with moderate followership perform their required job duties to the minimal extent of 

expectations. However, they may not be committed to the shared purpose of the team. These followers 

may function well within the team but do not contribute ideas and tend to focus on personal goals over 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

37 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

team goals. These followers may be easily distracted or more apt to be not engaged based on the 

behaviors of team members around them. Etizioni’s (1961) description of calculative commitment is 

similar to this type of followers in that followers may appear exemplary; however, their participation is 

based on personal wants or needs. This is similar to Gallup’s (Harter et al., 2009; Ott, 2007; Wagner & 

Harter, 2006) engagement level of not engaged where followers would only give minimal effort and 

energy towards the shared purpose.  

Exemplary followers are committed and engaged in achieving the shared purpose of the team. These 

followers frequently share their expertise with the team, are actively engaged in achieving the shared 

purpose of the team, and regularly go beyond the duties expected of their assigned role. This type of 

follower aligns with Gallup’s (Harter et al., 2009; Ott, 2007; Wagner & Harter, 2006) definition of 

engaged employees in that exemplary followers are passionate about the shared purpose and contribute 

new ideas. Moreover, exemplary followers would be morally committed according to Etzioni’s (1961) 

definition because they would internalize the values and standards of the team. 

Kelley (1992) suggested that exemplary followers, much like contributor team players, share 

responsibilities and are highly reliable workers on their teams. Moreover, Kelley suggested that 

exemplary followers complete tasks; however, Kelley differentiates from Parker in that exemplary 

followers prioritize tasks based on team needs rather than personal needs. Kelley, also suggested that 

exemplary followers, like collaborators and communicator team players, are focused on shared goals 

and supportive of other team players in achieving the shared goal. 

Chaleff (2009) suggested exemplary followers, like challenger team players, must ask difficult 

questions to ensure the team continues to focus on the shared goal. Moreover, Chaleff suggested 

exemplary followers are courageous at times when they are needed to challenge the direction of the 

leader if it does not align with organizational or team goals. 

The connection between Kelley (1992), Parker (2008), Chaleff (2009), and Peterson, et al. (2021) is 

that accountability is placed on the individual as part of a group rather than the group as one unit. 

McIntyre and Salas (1995) suggested that teams are more effective when organizations conceptualize 

and support teamwork. Hirschfeld et al. (2006) added to McIntyre and Salas (1995) reporting that 

teams were more effective when the individual participants were clear on what they viewed as an 

effective team. Hirschfeld et al.’s paradigmatic shift in modern times to understanding effective teams 

from the individual input level is consistent with our concept of exemplary followership. This coupled 

with the strong linkage between Parker’s Team Player Styles and Katzenbach and Smith’s 

complementary skills has led to the following four hypotheses: 

H1: Subjects who indicate higher levels of contributor as a team player will show greater exemplary 

followership. 

H2: Subjects who indicate higher levels of collaborator as a team player will show greater exemplary 

followership. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

38 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

H3: Subjects who indicate higher levels of communicator as a team player will show greater exemplary 

followership. 

H4: Subjects who indicate higher levels of challenger as a team player will show greater exemplary 

followership. 

 

3. Method 

Participants were recruited through SurveyMonkey, which recruits participants for surveys from their 

users. SurveyMonkey screens their participants based on user profiles set up on their site with matching 

demographics (SurveyMonkey, 2018). The participants are paid a minimal amount ($0.35) for their 

responses. The screening process required that participants be at least 18 years of age and work in some 

role in the healthcare industry within the United States.  

Two instruments were concatenated into one electronic survey along with demographics such as gender, 

age, ethnicity, education level, and length of employment. The survey was then distributed by 

SurveyMonkey to individuals who met the screening requirements. This resulted in 215 usable 

responses.  

The instrument we used to identify team player styles of participants was developed by Glenn Parker 

(2008) called the Parker Team Player Survey (PTPS). The PTPS is an 18-item self-report instrument 

that reports one of four team player styles. This uses a rank order scale for each of the 18 items which 

consists of possible behaviors. Each respondent ranks the behavior they are most likely to do as #1, 

with #4 being the one they are least likely to do. The range of scores for each style is from 18 (low 

reporting of that specific Team Player Style) to 72 (high reporting of that specific Team Player Style). 

The PTPS has been tested and retested for reliability. Parker (1991) reported Cronbach’s alpha for the 

subscales as: contributor = .67, collaborator = .55, communicator = .71, and challenger = .51. Parker 

used this instrument in a healthcare setting noting the distribution of styles: contributor = 12.9%, 

collaborator = 27.6%, communicator = 12.1%, challenger = 20.2%, and two or more primary styles = 

27.2%. Our sample came from the healthcare industry as well. 

Followership was measured using the Peterson et al. (2021) instrument with 32 items. It uses a Likert 

scale ranging from 0 to 6. There are three anchors on the scale: 0=Never, 3=Occasionally, and 6= 

Almost Always. The highest possible score with this followership instrument is 192. The score range is 

categorized into three categories: low followership (0-64); moderate followership (65-128); and 

exemplary followership (129-192). All factor loadings for the 32-item scale exceeded .5. The overall 

followership Cronbach’s alpha for their instrument was .97. Next, we report on our findings between 

the relationships of team player styles and followership behavior. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

39 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Results 

All 215 participants completed both the 18-item team player style portion of the survey and the 32-item 

followership portion. When participants failed to answer one item on the team player assessment. The 

sample size was large enough that we used the mean for that item to fill in those blanks. No participant 

had more than one blank on this portion of the overall survey. 

A total of 182 (85%) females participated along with 31 (14%) males and two who preferred not to 

identify their gender (1%), which is consistent with the healthcare industry which is typically 

comprised of more than 80 percent female employees. The mean age of the respondents was 38 years 

ranging from 18 to 64. Seventy-four percent of the population was Caucasian. 9% were African 

American, and the remaining 17% spread across many other ethnicities. The vast majority (92%) had 

some college or professional certification and only 8% reported having only a high school education. 

The mean length of employment was 7.9 years, ranging from a half year to 39 years of employment. 

The descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all of the variables are shown in Table 1. 

 

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Zero Order Correlations (n = 215) 

Variable Mean (s.d.) 1 2 3 4 

1.Followership 118.42 (24.05)     

2.Contributor 43.69 (5.41) .22**    

3.Collaborator 43.10 (4.94) -.08 -.21**   

4.Communicator 45.20 (5.87) -.08 -.53** -.15*  

5. Challenger 47.65 (5.50) -.10 -.16* -.42** -.42** 

* P < .05; ** p < .01 

 

One interesting finding from the correlation matrix is that the four-team player styles are significantly 

different from each other so that when one style goes up the other styles go down. In addition, the only 

team player style that is positively correlated with the followership variable is a contributor. This is 

consistent with Collins’ (2001) level two leadership, which he defines as Contributing Team Member. 

At this level, the team member uses their knowledge and skills to help the team succeed. The 

contributing team member works effectively with other members of the team. The other three styles are 

negatively correlated with followership, not something we anticipated. It is important to point out that 

while they are negatively correlated with followership none of these correlations are statistically 

significant. 

Since the four-team player styles are categorical variables, using the mean value we divided each team 

player style into two subgroups – those with scores above the mean were considered high in the 

subgroup (coded as 2) and those with scores below the mean were considered low in the subgroup 

(coded as 1). Next, t-tests were used to determine if the scores above the mean were significantly 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

40 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

different than the scores below the mean. This process was done for all four team player styles to 

answer each hypothesis. As a reminder, we have placed the hypothesis here. H1: Subjects who indicate 

higher levels of contributor as a team player will show greater followership behavior. 

An independent samples t-test was conducted between the followership means for contributor team 

player style to compare followership behavior from contributors who scored below the mean to those 

who scored above the mean. Table 2 below displays the t-test results. 

 

Table 2. T-test for Contributor Style (n= 215) 

Variable High Contributor  

M (s.d.) 

Low Contributor  

M (s.d.) 

t(213) 

df=2 

p Cohen’s 

d 

Followership 121.99 (20.54) 114.38 (27.01) 2.34 .02 .32 

 

There was a significant difference in the followership behavior for participants who scored higher on 

contributor than the participants who scored lower on contributor. These results indicate that the 

followership mean score was significantly lower for contributors reporting a lower contributor style. 

Cohen’s d = .32 indicated a medium effect size and when converted to r
2
 the amount of variance in the 

followership scores for contributors was a small effect size of .16. The results do support Hypothesis 1: 

subjects who indicate higher levels of a contributor as a team player will show greater followership 

scores. Based on these results, Hypothesis 1 is supported. 

The next hypothesis examined the collaborator style as it relates to followership behaviors. The 

hypothesis read: H2: Subjects who indicate higher levels of collaborator as a team player will show 

greater exemplary followership behavior. We followed the same process as for hypothesis 1 by dividing 

the collaborator team player style at the mean into two categories of high and low based on their score 

compared to the mean. Then we performed a t-test on the two independent samples. The results are 

presented in Table 3. 

 

Table 3. T-test for Collaborator Style (n= 215) 

Variable High Collaborator  

M (s.d.) 

Low Collaborator  

M (s.d.) 

t(213) df=2 p 

Followership 118.54 (24.03) 118.33 (24.16) .06 .95 

 

This hypothesis was not supported. The two means and standard deviations are almost identical. 

Because there is no significant difference, there was no reason to calculate the r
2
. These results suggest 

that a person’s collaborator style does not impact a person’s followership behavior. 

We next examined the Communicator Team Player Style. The hypothesis for this team player style was 

similar to the first hypothesis: H3: Subjects who indicate higher levels of communicator team player 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

41 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

style will show greater followership behavior. 

Again, an independent samples t-test was conducted between the followership means for participants 

who indicated the communicator team player style to compare followership behavior from 

communicators who were below the communicator mean to those above the mean. Table 4 below 

displays the results. 

 

Table 4. T-test for Communicator Style (n= 215) 

Variable High Communicator  

M (s.d.) 

Low Communicator  

M (s.d.) 

t(213) df=2 p 

Followership 116.89 (26.41) 119.90 (21.52) -.92 .36 

 

There was no significant difference in the followership scores for participants who scored high on 

communicator (M = 116.89) and participants who scored low on communicator (M = 119.90). The 

results indicate that Hypothesis 3 is not supported. While this hypothesis is not supported, it is 

interesting to note that the followership score is higher for those low in the communicator style than 

those high in the communicator style. 

Finally, an independent samples t-test was conducted for participants who indicated the challenger 

team player style to compare followership behavior scores from challengers who were below the 

challenger mean to those above the mean. The hypothesis read: H4: Subjects who indicate higher levels 

of challenger as a team player will show greater exemplary followership. Table 5 below displays the 

results of this analysis. 

 

Table 5. T-test for Challenger Style (n= 215) 

Variable High Challenger  

M (s.d.) 

Low Challenger  

M (s.d.) 

t(213) 

df=2 

p 

Followership 115.57 (25.52) 121.24(22.26) -1.74 .08 

 

There was no significant difference in the followership behavior scores for participants who scored 

lower on challenger and participants who scored higher on challenger. However, once again those who 

scored lower on Challenger scored higher on followership behaviors. These results indicate that 

Hypothesis 4 is not supported but they do raise some interesting thoughts for the discussion session of 

this manuscript 

 

5. Discussion 

Our findings suggest exemplary followers must be contributors to the shared purpose of the team. 

While our results are significant and the effect size according to Cohen (1992) is medium, it is 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

42 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

important to note that the mean value of the high contributor style (121.99) does not reach the 

exemplary level which ranges from 129-192. So, while the contributor style is statistically significant, 

the results have made us pause to reevaluate our analysis. In the study, there are only five individuals 

(2.3%) in the low followership category. This did not really surprise us too much since these 

individuals would be labeled as alienated committed by Etizoni (1961) and actively disengaged by 

Harter et al. (2009), Ott (2007), and Wagner and Harter (2006). We generally would not expect these 

individuals to even participate in studies about their organizations and their followership behaviors. On 

the other hand, there are 136 individuals (63.3%) of the sample that identify as exhibiting moderate 

followership behaviors. The final 74 (34.4%) identify as exemplary followers. Could it be that the 

mean split for the different team player styles is diluted by the five low followers? Could it be that the 

correct dependent variable is followership behaviors and the independent variable is the team player 

styles? This thinking led us to conduct a set of post hoc analyses. 

 

6. Post Hoc Analysis 

We began our post hoc analysis by examining the five individuals who scored below the cutoff, which 

was 64. Their scores ranged from 1 to 57. The mean score was 37.2 and the standard deviation was 

22.96. We reexamine the individual who scored a 1 on the followership assessment. In fact, the person 

had completed the whole survey and had placed zeros in all of the followership items except for one 

which he rated a 1. Since the followership assessment came first and the individual completed all the 

other items on the survey including the demographics, we are sure that this individual intended to 

indicate that they are not much of a follower. We decided to eliminate the five individuals and then 

rerun all of our statistical analyses. Having done this, we found that the elimination of the five 

individuals did not change our results. Still, none of the team player styles allowed participants to rise 

to the exemplary followership level. This seems to confirm our earlier analysis that while the 

Contributor style does increase followership, it does not increase it enough to reach exemplary status. 

Our second post hoc analysis was to flip our initial analysis on its head by using followership as the 

dependent variable and team player styles as the independent variables. Our thinking was that as 

individuals move from lower levels of followership up to exemplary followership, they might 

incorporate the different team player styles that Parker (2008) has identified. We returned to the full 

sample of 215 participants and split the followers into three categories: Low (0-64), Moderate (65-128), 

and Exemplary (129-192). We then did four one-way analyses of variance on each of the team player 

styles. Our results still showed that the Contributor style was significantly different between the 

exemplary followers and the low followers. However, there is no significant difference between the 

exemplary followers and the moderate followers. Again, there is no significant findings for the other 

three team player styles. The mean score for the Contributor style is 44.5 for exemplary followers. 

Given that the maximum score on this style is 72, it clearly indicates that while exemplary follower in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

43 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

this study exhibited more contribution to the team it does not help us better identify a team player style 

that if developed would lead to exemplary followership. 

What are the implications of this research? Many businesses use the Parker Team Player Styles in 

professional development sessions to train employees to be better team members. While the assessment 

is easy to administer and interpret, it will not increase followership on the team or within the 

organization. It might even harm the team functioning by employees placing labels on different 

members of the team. Based on those labels team members might develop expectations of different 

team members, such as expecting someone with the label of communicator to carry the conversation in 

team meetings, allowing other team members to sit back and not share in the communication process. 

Another implication of this research is to signal to other followership researchers that this is not a 

fruitful vein to follow in conducting followership research. 

In conclusion, while the Contributor style does increase followership, it does not raise it to an 

exemplary level. While this is disappointing, it has pointed us in a different direction that might be 

more fruitful. We are now turning our attention to Psychological Capital (Luthans, Youssef, Sweetman, 

and Harms, 2013), Etzioni’s (1961) commitment scale, and Gallup’s (Harter et al., 2009; Ott, 2007; 

Wagner & Harter, 2006) engagement assessment. We will be collecting a new sample using these 

assessment tools to better understand exemplary followership and to identify factors that organizations 

can use to develop an increase in exemplary followership in their teams and their organizations. 

 

References 

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. 

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: 

A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189-1207. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189 

Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (3rd ed.). San 

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. 

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. 

http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ndsu.nodak.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 

Collins, J. (2001) Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. New York, NY: 

HarperCollins. 

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674900200204  

Etzioni, A. A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York, NY: Free Press. 

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12 meta-analysis: The relationship 

between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Omaha, NE: Gallup. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

44 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Hirschfeld, R. R., Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., Giles, F. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (2006). Becoming team 

players: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowledge as a predictor of team task proficiency 

and observed teamwork effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 467-474. doi: 

10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.467 

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social independence theory. Genetic, 

Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131(4), 285-358. 

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance 

organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and 

followers who want to lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. 

Lindsey Hall, K. K., Baker, T. L., Andrews, M. C., Hunt, T. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2016). The importance 

of product/service quality for frontline marketing employee outcomes: The moderating effect of 

leader-member exchange (LMX). Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 24(1), 23-41. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1089762 

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., Sweetman, D. S., & Harms, P. D. (2013). Meeting the leadership challenge 

of employee well-being through relationship PsyCap and health PsyCap. Journal of Leadership & 

Organizational Studies, 20(1), 118-133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812465893 

McIntyre, R. M., & Salas, R. (1995). Measuring and managing for team performance: Emerging 

principles from complex environments. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team 

effectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 9-45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Millhiser, W. P., Coen, C. A., & Solow, D. (2011). Understanding the role of worker interdependence in 

team selection. Organization Science, 22(3), 772-787. 

Ott, B. (2007, June 14). Investors take note: Engagement boosts earnings. Business Journal, Gallup. 

Retrieved from 

https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/27799/investors-take-note-engagement-boosts-earnings.a

spx 

Parker, G. M. (2008). Team players and teamwork. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Peterson, T. O., Peterson, C. M., & Rook, B. W. (2021). Exemplary followership. Part 1: refining an 

instrument. Industrial and Commercial Training, 53(2), 128-135. 

Scarnati, J. T. (2001). On becoming a team player. Team performance management: An International 

journal, 7(1/2), 5-10. 

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York, 

NY: Doubleday Business. 

SurveyMonkey. (2018). SurveyMonkey audience. Retrieved from 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/audience/ 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/eshs              Education, Society and Human Studies             Vol. 5, No. 2, 2024 

 

45 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Taggar, S., & Haines III, V. Y. (2006). I need you, you need me: A model of initiated task 

interdependence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(3), 211-230. 

Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The elements of great managing (Vol. 978, No. 1-59992). 

Simon and Schuster. 

Yue, C., Fong, P. S. W., & Li, T. (2019). Meeting the challenge of workplace change: Team cooperation 

outperforms team competition. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(7), 1-15. 

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7997 

Xu, A. J., Loi, R., Cai, Z., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Reversing the lens: How followers influence 

leader-member exchange quality. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 92(3), 

475-497. 


