If a TMT is behaviorally integrated, its members frequently and substantially interact, know what their peers are thinking, doing, and expecting, closely work together, observe each other’s behavior, and jointly decide on the firm’s course of action. Drawing on the integrated model of individual behavior and the reasoning on TFL in TMTs outlined above, it is argued
10 Collective team identification was shown to result in TMT behavioral integration, as was a CEO’s collectivistic orientation (Carmeli & Shteigman, 2010; Simsek et al., 2005).
11 Several studies showed that consensus-oriented decision making promotes TMT behavioral integration (e.g., Carmeli et al., 2011; Ling et al., 2008b; Ou et al., 2014).
that the three components of behavioral integration significantly affect TMT members’
intention to perform TFL. In doing so, the adoption of TFL by TMT members is supposed to be a gradual process, with some executives more readily emulating CEO TFL than others, depending on their respective personal disposition (e.g., extraversion, emotional intelligence, etc.).
By frequently exchanging information and discussing new ideas, TMT members open up to cognitive mechanisms of reconsideration and reappraisal. In this state, their individual attitudes are highly susceptible to change. Since some of the TMT members have already been deeply convinced of the effectiveness of TFL, these “vanguards” share their beliefs both explicitly and implicitly, and individual managers who are exposed to their influence are led to take up a positive stance on TFL. This rationale not only applies to “procrastinators”, managers who have not yet been convinced of the virtues of TFL, but also to those who have already been persuaded to a greater extent: in a self-affirmative exchange, executives mutually fortify their inclination to perform TFL. In addition to this impact on individual attitudes, regular and dense communications between TMT members make reciprocal demands and expectations more explicit to the individual. Convinced that TFL is the most effective means in realizing the common vision, TMT members exert conformity pressures on procrastinators, creating strong socio-normative expectations toward TFL. Accordingly, it is argued that:
Information exchange in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL through individual attitudes and perceived socio-normative expectations.
to the exemplary influence of their peers. Individual executives have plenty of opportunities to observe their colleagues’ behavior, and hence directly witness the positive outcomes of transformational vanguards’ leadership behavior for both the TMT and the organization as a whole. As more and more of their peers engage in this specific leadership style, executives face various occasions to observationally learn TFL behaviors. By watching a steadily growing proportion of their peers practicing TFL, managers’ confidence in their own ability of performing it is greatly enhanced. Additionally, they can be assured that their peers assist them in case of any difficulties, as TMT members help each other and engage in OCB.
Accordingly, it is proposed that:
Collaborative behavior in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL through perceived behavioral efficacy.
In deciding on organizational policies and procedures, TMT members profoundly shape the culture and norms of an organization in accordance with their convictions.12 Being persuaded of the virtues of TFL, transformational executives gradually create an organizational climate which rewards this specific leadership behavior and discredits others. Since the behaviorally integrated TMT shares decision making powers, all members take part in decision making and the largest possible consensus is sought, to the extent that every executive has the opportunity to voice his opinion and approve or disapprove a decision. Because of this involvement in decision making, individual managers cannot easily deviate from the adopted policy – in contrast to situations in which they have no stake in the decision making. Since they take part in the final vote, their peers can expect them to comply with the policy agreed upon. Hence,
12 Schein’s (2010) notion of leaders as the “main architects of [organizational] culture” highlights this point (p. xi).
socio-normative expectations for conformity are high, and this holds particularly true for the question of which leadership behavior is exhibited from the part of TMT members. Hence:
Joint decision making in a behaviorally integrated TMT fosters TMT members’ TFL trough perceived socio-normative expectations.
Altogether, TMT behavioral integration induced by a transformational CEO spurs TMT members’ TFL by affecting individual attitudes, creating strong perceived socio-normative expectations and boosting perceived behavioral efficacy. In doing so, the “team can influence each member just as the individual leader can influence his or her followers”, a phenomena labeled “team leadership” (Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung 2002, p. 67). The collective influence of the TMT on its members thus causes strong stimuli toward TFL dispersion. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that:
H3: TMT behavioral integration has a positive effect on TMT transformational leadership.
With recourse to the rationale of the integrated model of individual behavior, the mechanisms described above should emanate an impetus toward TMT TFL over and above the direct effect of CEO TFL, as (1) the number of referents approving TFL is higher, and (2) the perceived unanimity of their attitudes and behavior grows over time. Hence, a significant part of the total effect of CEO TFL on TMT TFL should be effectuated indirectly through TMT behavioral integration. Correspondingly, it is proposed that:
H4: TMT behavioral integration partially mediates the positive effect of CEO transformational leadership on TMT transformational leadership.