520407

research-article2014

GOMXXX10.1177/1059601113520407Group & Organization ManagementAmos and Klimoski

Article

Courage: Making
Teamwork Work Well

Group & Organization Management

2014, Vol. 39(1) 110128
The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601113520407
gom.sagepub.com

Benjamin Amos1 and Richard J. Klimoski1

Abstract
The move toward flatter and more flexible team situations has prompted
the need for acts of leadership outside a formally designated role. In these
situations, the choice of whether or not to act as a leader in the team is a
discretionary choice and often involves risk. We consider the qualities of a
team member that make up the propensity to act like a leader in situations
of risk where the choice to act is most problematic. We propose that what
we know about the virtue of courage lends valuable insights into this
question and offer a framework of three qualities (character, confidence,
and credibility) that serve as the foundation for the construct. Finally, we
offer practical implications for the selection and retention related to the
virtue of courage in team composition.
Keywords
team leadership, courage, character, identity, self-efficacy
While there is no shortage of frameworks for describing team leadership
(Northouse, 2010; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2001), these do not fully acknowledge that many acts of team leadership reflect a discretionary choice (Jacobs
& Jaques, 1987; Osborn, Hunt, & Jauch, 1980). Instead, many views of team
leadership assume that if action is needed, a team member will choose to
answer that call (Bass, 2008). These theories rarely explain that team

1George

Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Benjamin Amos, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive,
MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
Email: bamos1@gmu.edu

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

111

members may choose not to act like a leader even if the need is clear and
present. To put it simply, with some exceptions (e.g., functioning in a military
command structure), just when, where, how, and even if one will exert team
leadership is a judgment call.
For the purpose of this article, we define acts of leadership as attempts to
influence stakeholders to adopt a course of action to achieve organizationally
relevant goals. In our view, organizational research has been surprisingly
silent when it comes to understanding just why a person chooses to act like a
team leader. The choice to act is not often stressed in models of team leadership because there is a common presumption that a designated team leader
exists and that the leader will perform necessary actions on behalf of the team
(Bass, 2008; McGrath, 1984). Thus, the duties, authorities, and, ultimately,
responsibility for team performance have been considered to reside within
the specified leader. We wish to challenge the situational assumption that an
appointed leader always exists and that even if he or she does exist that he or
she will always choose to take action when needed. To address these gaps, we
investigate the characteristics that might increase the propensity for an individual to act as a team leader, particularly in situations of personal or professional risk. In addition, we present the construct of courage and the three
qualities that serve as the foundation for the construct. We propose that this
work addresses a gap in the team leadership research and explain the resulting implications for team composition.
The historical team leadership literature has focused on an appointed team
leader who performs necessary behaviors on behalf of the team (Bass, 2008;
Northouse, 2010). In todays work environment, there is an increasing recognition that many teams operate without a formally designated leader (Shuffler,
Salas, Yammarino, Serban, & Shirreffs, 2012). Thus, team leadership is not
tied to a specified role or to a designated individual but instead is presumed
to be enacted through individual decisions and choices, much like a complex
adaptive system that is constructed (and reconstructed) between team members (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2007). In this way, the literature has commonly
focused on an individual acting as a leader, whereas we wish to focus on an
individual acting like a leader.
In any team, there are a number of team leadership processes and behaviors that must be enacted meet team needs (McGrath, 1962). While contemporary teamwork models (e.g., shared leadership) often lack a formal
leadership role or structure, they still indicate the necessity of acts of leadership to meet team needs. As a result of the absence of a formal team leader,
responsibility for managing team processes and team performance lies with
the team members. In such circumstances, both individual and collective acts
of influence are needed, but their occurrence may be problematic because

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

112

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

there is no formal leadership structure. Thus, contemporary work arrangements place a heavy focus on the willingness of team members to rise to the
occasion and to step up to the team leadership challenges.
Proposition 1: For a team to be effective, key functions must be enacted
by team members who often lack formal authority.

Discretionary Choice
Just because team leadership behaviors are needed does not mean that they
are enacted. The choice to undertake acts of team leadership has typically
been captured by the notion of leader emergence (Mumford, Antes, Caughron,
& Friedrich, 2008). Emergent leadership behaviors typically include initiating structure, goal setting, and consideration (Hunt, 2004). Authors have
stated that the decision to put oneself out there and act like a team leader is
an intentional action involving deliberative choice (Hunt, Osborn, & Boal,
2009; Klimoski & Amos, 2013). The choice to act may be prompted by situational needs, such as when the accomplishment of group goals may be in
jeopardy and other team members fail to act (DeChurch et al., 2011). Much
previous research assumes that if action is needed, a team member will indeed
act; however, this research ignores the fact that this is indeed a choice. We
consider a number of key factors that might influence this choice.

Subjective Risk
Current team leadership theory, while broad, rarely speaks directly to the
presence of risksuch as the risk of failure if a strategy advocated by a team
member proves to be ineffective. For example, a recent meta-analysis of the
behavioral leadership literature alludes to the need for team member risk taking, but offers little within the existing theory or studies that would help
understand or predict the propensity to act under risky circumstances (Derue,
Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011). Furthermore, the literature has
identified acting under risk as an important leadership behavior, but we find
little consideration of risk within current leadership theory (Yukl, Gordon, &
Taber, 2002).
To illustrate, actions such as speaking out (or using employee voice) on
divisive issues may involve professional risk. Detert and Burris (2007) define
employee voice as information intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside an organization with the perceived authority to act,
even though such information may challenge and upset the status quo of the
organization and its power holders (p. 869). The subjective risk associated

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

113

with speaking up is greater if a team member lacks formal authority as there

may be ambiguity regarding whether others will follow. Ambiguity surrounding whether influence attempts will be successful may stem from a lack of
clarity around team objectives (Druskat & Wheeler, 2003), multiple possible
paths to accomplish team goals (Bishop & Scott, 2000), and challenges from
other team members in setting direction (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Furthermore, subjective risk may increase when acting involves consequences such as significant professional or physical risk to others. Examples
of high consequences include firefighter teams attempting to control a wildfire (Weick, 1993), using employee voice within airline crew teams to prevent crashes (Kanki, Helmreich, & Anca, 2010), and acting quickly to
prevent treatments that put patient lives at risk in hospital teams (Institute of
Medicine, 1999).
We would be presumptuous to argue that things such as company policies,
practices, and pressures as they shape organizational culture do not affect
workers perceptions of risk. For example, a culture that discourages criticism such as the one at National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) during the Challenger Shuttle launch increases the perceived risks
of speaking up even if the consequences of not doing so may be catastrophic
(Rogers, 1986). However, we feel that despite the presence of subjective risk,
individuals can choose to act or not to.
Proposition 2: Acts of team leadership often involve a willingness to
accept personal or professional risk.

Moral Action
As pointed out by M. E. Brown and Trevio (2006), choosing to act often
requires not only moral awareness but also the willingness to act according
to moral principles to challenge the status quo. In this regard, they distinguish
between an appreciation for moral principles and the willingness to take
action based on moral character. While both cases involve the presence of
moral principles, a moral foundation that precipitates action is the
differentiator.
Luthans and Avolio (2003) created the notion of authentic leadership to
characterize those leaders who are willing to act with integrity as well as to
engage with followers to promote a positive work environment. One element
that defines actions of an authentic leader is exhibiting relational transparency.
Relational transparency involves presenting ones self openly and sharing
(often personal) information that may create feelings of risk of vulnerability to
another person. The willingness to choose relational transparency implies that

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

114

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

behavior is consistent across team relationships and settings to bring about a

noble or worthy goal, even if it means putting ones career or relationships at
risk. In this way, the choice to act on behalf of the team may be motivated by
the moral or ethical character of the potential team leader.

Courage
In the following section, we offer a brief review of the literature on courage,
a discussion of how courage is relevant to team leadership and a formulation
of courage derived from the team leadership literature that increases the propensity to act (or not act) as a team leader with courage. We propose that the
theoretical space between the need for action and the choice to act (particularly in the presence of risk and moral action) is underdeveloped. We offer
that the construct of courage can help better explain the gap between these
constructs.
The virtue of courage has been lauded across time and over a diverse
range of societies (Dahlsgaard, Peterson, & Seligman, 2005). ComteSponville (2001) highlighted the discretionary aspects of courage as the
choice to confront, master, and overcome fear (p. 51). Other scholars, such
as Aristotle, described the value of courage in the context of great risk (e.g.,
military battle) as the golden mean between cowardice and recklessness
(Aristotle, 1987). The Confucian thinker Mencius, writing over 2,300 years
ago, focused on ones moral identity as an essential component of courage.
These authors each focus on a valuable component of courage (deliberative
choice, overcoming risk, and moral action), each of which, as described earlier, is important to team leadership and contributes a unique aspect to the
construct of courage.
In the face of such historical importance, we question why courage is
rarely mentioned in the organizational research. One reason Woodard and
Pury (2007) offer in explaining the lack of research is the difficulty in establishing a clear and concise definition of the multi-dimensional construct.
Courage has been described as the will to accomplish a goal in the face of
opposition or risk (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). In the field of psychology,
most authors have defined courage as the ability to persist in spite of fear
(Rachman, 1990). Worline, Wrzesniewski, and Rafaeli (2002) described it
simply as wise action in the face of danger (p. 323). Shelp (1984) described
courage as the disposition to voluntarily act, perhaps fearfully, in a dangerous circumstance, where the relevant risks are reasonably appraised, in an
effort to obtain or preserve some perceived good for oneself or others (p. 345).
For the purposes of our article, we adopt a more detailed definition of courage proposed by Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, and Sternberg (2007) as

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

115

(a) a willful, intentional act, (b) executed after mindful deliberation, (c)
involving objective substantial risk to the actor, (d) primarily motivated to
bring about a noble good or worthy end (e) despite perhaps the presence of the
emotion of fear. (p. 95)

Using this definition, we show that the construct of courage has much to
add to the discussion of choosing to act as a team leader, especially in situations of risk. We propose a framework for stimulating greater professional
attention to both the discretionary nature of team leadership as a starting
point in identifying the qualities behind the capacity of individuals to act
courageously.
Despite its ancient pedigree, there is surprisingly little mention today of
courage in the team leadership literature of our field. To be sure, there was
some early interest concerning the study of courageous acts of team leadership, particularly in military contexts (Gee, 1931; H. G. Lord, 1918). These
efforts stemmed from purely practical purposes and focused on selecting soldiers based on the traits of courage and bravery. The authors and government
found courage valuable because it meant that soldiers would choose to perform in combat even despite the risk of death. Despite a rich literature on
team leadership and a powerful historic scholarship on the construct of courage, one may wonder why there is so little application of this virtue in the
team leadership literature.
Our approach to acting with courage builds on the definition of courage
itself (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Rate et al., 2007) and incorporates qualities noted in the research on both team leadership and work behavior that are
thought to promote taking discretionary action under risk to pursue a worthy
goal. More specifically, to identify constructs related to acting with courage,
we made use of the historical literature on the construct of courage (Peterson
& Seligman, 2004; Rate et al., 2007), the organizational behavior literature,
and leadership theory (Northouse, 2010; Yukl, 2010). This article attempts to
operationalize the constructs underlying the propensity of team members to
exhibit courage. We also considered the theoretical and empirical work of
Chan and Drasgow (2001) with their model of the motivation to lead and a
recent paper that focused directly on the construct of courage (Hannah,
Sweeney, & Lester, 2010). As noted at several points, the literature rarely
deals explicitly with the propensity (motivation) to act on the part of a leader,
especially under conditions of risk.
Proposition 3: Individuals exhibiting courage will be more likely to demonstrate acts of team leadership under conditions of risk.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

116

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

We wish to clarify that we are interested not simply in acts of team leadership, of which there are many, nor are we interested in all possible acts of
courage, which may be an even broader category. This effort is focused on
the overlap between two areasacts of team leadership involving courage.
Our framework describing ones likelihood to exhibit courage derives from a
deductive consideration of its definition. In particular, we view team leadership as a discretionary act that often involves risk. As such, we see the choice
of when, where, and how to act with courage as primary in decisions of greatest importance.
We also point out that in many cases there is a domain-specific risk that is
associated with acting as a leader. While the organizational literature frequently addresses the presence of risk, we see little integration of this topic in
the leadership literature. We offer thoughts about how the propensity to
exhibit courage might matter in current theory and how it might influence
staffing decisions. To that end, we offer qualities underlying the likelihood of
exhibiting courage (confidence, character, and credibility).

Propensity to Exhibit Courage: Confidence

In predicting the propensity to act, one factor stands out. If an individual
lacks a positive sense of self, he or she is not likely to choose to take risks or
act with courage. In exploring confidence as a key individual characteristic
tied to acting with courage, we operationalize confidence through two constructs related to self-efficacy: generalized self-efficacy (GSE) and leadership self-efficacy (LSE; Klimoski & Amos, 2013). To put it simply, having
confidence raises ones propensity to act with courage.

Generalized Self-Efficacy
We consider GSE as a key component in our framework describing the confidence to act. GSE is conceptualized as ones expectations that he or she can
perform competently across a broad range of challenging situations that
require effort and perseverance (Tipton & Worthington, 1984). High levels of
self-efficacy promote an individuals belief that they can influence the situation toward a desired or necessary outcomeespecially under risk (Bandura,
1997; Goud, 2005). From a theoretical perspective, without confidence that
desired outcomes can be achieved, an individual is not likely to act.
Many contemporary team arrangements do not have specified team leaders,
so emergence of team members to meet needs is critical. To this point, GSE has
been linked to team leadership emergence through quantitative and qualitative

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

117

research (Bass, 2008; Yukl, 2010). Specifically, GSE is a key component of

whether individuals emerge as team leaders on a task involving initiating structure (r = .31; Smith & Foti, 1998). In addition, longitudinal studies have found
that high GSE was a key factor in whether individuals would be promoted as
leaders and was even found to be a key predictor in whether supervisors would
rate them as effective team leaders (Foti & Hauenstein, 2007). These studies
found that GSE predicts emergence over many contexts, which suggests that
the drive to emerge is stable across situations.
Situations where exhibiting courage may involve risk or challenges are
shown to drive team members to provide safe solutions and to push team
members toward consensus (Gardner, 2012). Problematically, these situations are often the ones where exhibiting courage is often most important.
The traits driving emergence have also been linked to the propensity to enact
necessary team leadership behaviors even in risky situations. In this regard,
research has found ties between high levels of GSE and an approach orientation such that those with high levels of GSE were more likely speak up to
benefit the team (Ferris et al., 2011). In addition, researchers have found an
important link between global self-esteem and employee proactivity with
respect to expressions of speaking up with employee voice (r = .38; Crant,
Kim, & Wang, 2011).

Leadership Self-Efficacy
The organizational behavior literature and writings on team leadership theory
imply the necessity of feeling competent to enact appropriate leadership
behaviors in the motivation to act as a team leader (Hoover, Giambatista,
Sorenson, & Bommer, 2010; McCall, 2010). Confidence in ones expertise or
skill comes together in a relatively new construct called LSE (Hannah,
Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008; Paglis & Green, 2002). LSE has been
defined as
a persons judgment that he or she can successfully exert leadership [influence]
by setting a direction for the work group, building relationships with followers
in order to gain their commitment to change goals, and working with them to
overcome obstacles to change. (Paglis & Green, 2002, p. 217)

As the definition suggests, there is an inherently social component to this

construct. The confidence to successfully motivate others is a key differentiator between GSE and LSE. LSE has been shown to predict leadership performance, leadership potential, and leadership motivation (Chan & Drasgow,
2001; Hannah, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Chan, 2012).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

118

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

Inherent in the construct is feeling confidence as a result of a deep familiarity with and mastery of team leadership problems and solutions. While GSE
might derive from success in life, LSE is closely tied to the task at hand. In line
with Banduras work on self-efficacy development, many authors have pointed
to the need for experience in building the confidence (self-efficacy) to act as a
team leader (Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh, 2009; McCall, 2010). We argue
that LSE is partially driven and reinforced by experiences of acting as a team
leader. That said, previous team leadership experiences may bolster a team
members confidence to act; however, there is still risk in acting courageously
as there is uncertainty about whether he or she will be successful.
Proposition 4: Individuals possessing a high level of confidence (GSE
and LSE) are more likely to exhibit courage by demonstrating acts of team
leadership under conditions of risk.

Propensity to Exhibit Courage: Character

In a related manner, Hollenbeck, in describing the qualities needed to take on
team leadership, makes frequent reference to character. This construct refers
to both the non-moral attributes of a good team leader such as judgment and
work ethic as well as the moral aspects that include honesty, integrity, sacrificing self-interest for the greater good, and treating people with respect
(Hollenbeck, 2009, p. 137). While the former causes an individual to act as a
team leader because of feelings of duty, the latter reflects a moral identity that
prompts action.

Duty
Social and normative elements of character are often powerful forces promoting action and can be expressed as duty. Duty promotes motivation to
lead or act with courage because of societal and personal theories of effective
leadership, particularly in situations of risk (R. G. Lord & Maher, 1991). The
duty to meet team needs through team leadership behaviors is an important
motivational force for action (McGrath, 1962; Stogdill, 1948). A duty to act
means not just to get something done, but also getting it done right. In line
with the authentic leadership literature (Luthans & Avolio, 2003), behaving
in a manner consistent with commitments to other team members appears an
important part of courage. Relatedly, the propensity to act under risk has been
tied to a strong sense of ones duty to act on behalf of others in extremely
high-risk contexts, such as bomb disposal operators (Rachman, 1990) and the
crew resisting the September 11 hijackers (Quinn & Worline, 2008).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

119

Moral Identity
We point out that at its most fundamental level character is a major and central component of ones moral identity. As such, when scholars (Ibarra &
Barbulescu, 2010; R. G. Lord & Hall, 2005) argue that to be an effective team
leader one must adopt the ability to act as a leader as part of ones identity,
they also say that a moral identity must be learned and made into a central
part of ones character. In other words, there is often a moral or ethical component to acting with courage as a leader that is part of ones identity (M. E.
Brown & Trevio, 2006).
The role of moral identity as a driver of courageous action has largely
been ignored by the team leadership literature; however, there have been two
notable exceptions. First, Hannah, Sweeney, and Lester (2007) describe the
role of moral character in the choice to act with courage, particularly in situations of risk. They highlight the role of moral identity in persistence when
dealing with adversity. Second, as mentioned earlier, the authentic leadership
literature points out the importance of an internalized moral perspective in
taking action under risk (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson,
2008). An internalized moral perspective allows team leaders to draw upon
reserves of moral capacity in acting to address ethical issues and sustain
moral actions (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003).
Proposition 5: Individuals possessing a high level of character (duty and
moral identity) are more likely to exhibit courage by demonstrating acts of
team leadership under conditions of risk.

Translating Courage Into Effectiveness: Credibility

To this point, we have tried to model when and why team members might act
with courage. We now attempt to explain what an individual can do to convey
credibility to team members. Credibility, which is defined as the quality or
power of inspiring belief, gives insight into this question (Credibility, 2012).
As the definition states, whether one is worthy to be believed is a key question in getting support from team members that then leads to accepting an
individuals team leadership. To put it simply, an individual is only a team
leader if team members follow.
Because of the relational nature of influence, some are blessed with surface features that align with preconceived notions of followers about how a
leader should look (R. G. Lord & Maher, 1991). These implicit beliefs
increase the likelihood that team members will see this individual as credible (Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Offerman, Kennedy, & Wirtz, 1994).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

120

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

While not everyone fits the stereotype of a team leader, there are other things
team members can do to gain credibility. These individuals must have and
project two key elementskey skills and social capital relevant to acts of
influence.

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSAs)

One path to credibility involves projecting command of the relevant KSAs to
act as a leader. Knowing when, where, and how to act, particularly in highrisk situations, requires great skill and, when done correctly can be very courageous (Reardon, 2007). Support for the notion that evidence of team
leadership KSAs lies at the heart of preparing individuals to engage in team
leadership if needed is common throughout the team leadership literature
(McCall, 2010). In cases of self-managed groups, evidence of previous success leads team members and upper management to see an individual as having team leadership qualities and increases the likelihood that others will look
to them for guidance (Barry, 1991).
Influencing team members may involve a deep understanding and skill in
knowing when team members will be ready to follow (Wageman, Fisher, &
Hackman, 2009). In some cases, influence attempts in contemporary team setting may involve rejection by peers and subsequent out-group status or even
competition with other team members for influence attempts. The skill to
influence team action, particularly in situations where one lacks formal authority, involves appealing to team member needs and organizational needs to get
genuine commitment (Scharlatt & Smith, 2011). Potential followers quickly
evaluate the level of support, motivation, and ability that serve as crucial
determinants in whether an individual will be perceived as having the qualities
to be an effective team leader (Wallis, Yammarino, & Feyerherm, 2011).

Social Capital
Another key component of credibility is social capital, which means demonstrating connectivity with key stakeholders and the networked relationships
that promote resource exchange and allow effective cooperation throughout
the team (Day, 2000; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). By showing centrality within
peer networks, displaying many high-quality relationships, and showing
organizational support, team members are perceived as having greater status
in the organization (Venkataramani, Green, & Schleicher, 2010). Authors
argue that perceived competence is highly driven by the desire of team members to follow individuals with the influence and connections to get things
done (Bono & Anderson, 2005).

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

121

In addition to social capital, competence to understand team member

needs empirically has been found to be a key variable in leader emergence
(Ct, Lopes, Salovey, & Miners, 2010). This capability would seem particularly important when emerging as a leader in a work setting. If one is unable
to understand the feelings of prospective followers, there is an additional risk
of being perceived as overreaching and little chance of being perceived as a
potentially effective team leader. In this way, credibility in the relationship
between the team leader and members is fundamental as team members
would not believe the message if they do not believe the messenger (Kouzes
& Posner, 2011).
Proposition 6: The likelihood of being effective when exhibiting courage
by demonstrating team leadership is greater when the team member has
high levels of credibility.
Drivers of team effectiveness have been studied extensively throughout
the literature as predicting and improving team effectiveness is often the ultimate goal in team research (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; McGrath, 1984). This
choice to act is not often considered, and individuals tend to assume that, if
necessary, acts of team leadership will be performed. This assumption fails to
consider the risks associated with performing team leadership functions, particularly without formal authority, and that ultimately most acts of team leadership are a discretionary choice. To be effective, teams need individuals with
the propensity to perform (confidence and character) along with the propensity to influence other team members (credibility). We argue that each of
these elements is important to being effective when demonstrating courage.
For example, one could imagine a situation where a team member has both
confidence and character to act as a team leader but lacks credibility and thus
no team members follow.
Proposition 7: Individuals who possess confidence, character, and credibility will be more effective in performing acts of team leadership.
Team composition has been studied for more than 50 years and plays a key
role in team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Mann, 1959). One
especially relevant consideration for team composition is the set of traits and
attributes of team members (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Webber &
Donahue, 2001). Thus, under conditions of risk, particularly when there is no
designated leader, selecting individuals with the traits that underlie courage
for team membership is warranted. We see the notion of staffing for courage
and empowerment as linked in a dynamic way. If the controlling authority

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

122

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

has discretion on staffing and operating conditions, not only would that controlling authority try to recruit with those traits in mind but also allow for
empowerment and discretion for team members with those qualities. We
argue that just as team composition based on skills and abilities influences
whether or not a team will be effective, so does the presence or absence of
team members with the qualities underlying courageous action.
Proposition 8: A team will be more successful to the extent that it has
members who possess the key qualities of confidence, character, and credibility underlying courage.
This article aims to promote a greater appreciation for the concept of courage as a leader in situations of risk. Our effort makes three main contributions
to the field of organizational management, team leadership, and groups. First,
it fills an important gap in the team leadership and courage literature by providing a greater conceptual understanding to acting with courage in situations
of risk. Second, it provides a framework and a set of testable propositions to
stimulate future research. Third, we believe that this effort offers a strong
theoretical starting point for work on the developmental capacity for courage
that has practical implications for team composition in the contemporary
workplace.
We offer a set of testable research propositions that take the first step in
integrating the leadership and courage literature. We have argued that they
must occur and have argued for key personal characteristics as drivers of acts
of courage. It should come as no surprise that the call for courage and the
qualities we call attention to are not different from what we want in formal
leaders. The big difference is when thinking of organizational needs, it is not
common to include the propensity for courage in the short list for teamwork
requirements. If there is anything to be taken from our analysis, additional
attention should be given for the need to deal with risk and the need to recruit
and retain people with these types of skills and abilities (Klimoski & Zukin,
1999).
Finally, we submit that our framework adds insights into a practical problem many in the public find with leaders todaya lack of courage.
Commentators and columnists have pointed to the need for current governmental leadership to have the courage to pursue good policies even in the
face of significant political cost (Klein, 2011). In testifying to the specially
appointed Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, Alan Simpson (a
former Senator himself) implored the members of the panel to look past partisan positions and come to an agreement on how to proceed with deficit
reduction. He stated that people admire guts and courage. They may fight

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

123

you, they may vilify you, but they will admire you (Simpson, 2011). Many
in the United States feel frustrated with the current political partisanship of
leaders who appear unwilling to make morally relevant decisions due to the
political risks associated with compromise. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a CBS
Broadcasting Inc./New York Times poll recently found that Congressional
approval had dropped to 9%, which is the lowest rating since the poll began
in 1977 (CBS/New York Times Poll, 2011). In perhaps one of the most crucial times in recent history, the United States needs courageous action to
tackle mounting economic and social problems; unfortunately, the public
sees little hope in that action. Given these pressing issues and difficult leadership decisions, there is no better time for a richer understanding of the qualities underlying the choice to act with courage.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Aristotle. (1987). The Nicomachean ethics (J. E. Welldon, Trans.). Amherst, NY:
Prometheus Books.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.
Barry, D. (1991). Managing the bossless team: Lessons in distributed leadership.
Organizational Dynamics, 20, 31-47.
Bass, B. M. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Bishop, J. W., & Scott, K. (2000). An examination of organizational and team commitment in a self-directed team environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
439-450.
Bono, J. E., & Anderson, M. H. (2005). The Advice and Influence Networks of
Transformational Leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1306-1314.
Brown, M. E., & Trevio, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 595-616.
CBS Broadcasting Inc./New York Times Poll. (2011, October 19-24). Poll. Retrieved
from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125482-503544/congressional-approval-at-all-time-low-of-9-according-to-new-cbs-news-new-yorktimes-poll/
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and
leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 481-498.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

124

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

Comte-Sponville, A. (2001). A small treatise on the great virtues (C. Temerson,

Trans.). New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.
Ct, S., Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., & Miners, C. H. (2010). Emotional intelligence
and leadership emergence in small groups. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 496-508.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness
Research From the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management,
23, 239.
Crant, J. M., Kim, T. Y., & Wang, J. (2011). Dispositional antecedents of demonstration and usefulness of voice behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,
285-297.
Credibility. (2012). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/credibility
Dahlsgaard, K., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Shared virtue: The convergence of valued human strengths across culture and history. Review of General
Psychology, 9, 203-213.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership Development: A Review In Context. Leadership
Quarterly, 11, 581.
DeChurch, L. A., Burke, C. S., Shuffler, M. L., Lyons, R., Doty, D., & Salas, E.
(2011). A historiometric analysis of leadership in mission critical multiteam environments. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 152-169.
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and
behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their
relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7-52.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the
door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869-884.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I. S. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation,
and access to developmental opportunities in predicting managerial competencies. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 731-743.
Druskat, V., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective
leadership of self-managing work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46,
435-457.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-576.
Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. R., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S. D., & Heller,
D. (2011). Approach or avoidance (or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations
within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology, 64, 137-161.
Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. M. A. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 347-355.
Gardner, H. K. (2012). Performance Pressure as a Double-edged Sword: Enhancing
Team Motivation but Undermining the Use of Team Knowledge. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 57, 1-46.
Gee, W. (1931). Rural-urban heroism in military action. Social Forces, 10, 102-111.
Goud, N. H. (2005). Courage: Its nature and development. Journal of Humanistic
Counseling, Education, and Development, 44, 102-116.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

125

Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy:
Review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 669-692.
Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Chan, A. (2012). Leader Self
and Means Efficacy: A multi-component approach. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decision Processes, 118, 143-161.
Hannah, S. T., Sweeney, P. J., & Lester, P. B. (2007). Toward a courageous mindset:
The subjective act and experience of courage. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2,
129-135.
Hannah, S. T., Sweeney, P. J., & Lester, P. B. (2010). The courageous mind-set: A
dynamic personality system approach to courage. In C. L. S. Pury & S. J. Lopez
(Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp.
125-148). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:
Time and the effects of surface and deep-level diversity on work group decisions.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96-107.
Hollenbeck, G. P. (2009). Executive selectionWhats right and whats wrong.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice,
2, 130-143.
Hunt, J. G. (2004). Consideration and structure. In J. M. Burns, G. R. Goethals, & L.
Sorenson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of leadership (pp. 196-204). Great Barrington,
MA: Berkshire.
Hunt, J. G., Osborn, R. N., & Boal, K. B. (2009). The architecture of managerial
leadership: Stimulation and channeling of organizational emergence. Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 503-516.
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness,
and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 35, 135-154.
Institute of Medicine. (1999). To err is human: Building a safer health system.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Jacobs, T. O., & Jaques, E. (1987). Leadership in complex systems. In J. Zeidner
(Ed.), Human productivity enhancement (pp. 7-65). New York, NY: Praeger.
Kanki, B.A., Helmreich, R.L. & Anca, J. (Eds.). Crew Resource Management. San
Diego. CA: Elsevier.
Klein, E. (2011, November 28). What Gingrich, Romney and Obama have in common.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/what-gingrich-romney-and-obama-have-in-common/2011/11/28/
gIQAvh595N_print.html
Klimoski, R. J., & Amos, B. (2013). To act as a leader. In J. K. Ford, J. R. Hollenbeck,
& A. M. Ryan (Eds.), The nature of work: Advances in psychological theory,
methods, and practice (pp. 69-98). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Klimoski, R. J., & Zukin, L. B. (1999). Selection and staffing for team effectiveness. In
E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best management practices for fostering high performance (pp. 63-91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

126

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2011). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why
people demand it (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and
research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J.
Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in
organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lord, H. G. (1918). The psychology of courage. Boston, MA: John W. Luce.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A Test of Leadership Categorization
Theory: Internal Structure, Information Processing, and Leadership Perceptions.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 34, 343-378.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of
leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591-615.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational
psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1-62). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive developmental
approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-261). San Francisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationships between personality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241-270.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Complexity and strategic leadership. In Hooijberg,
R., Hunt, J., Antonakis, J., Boal, K., & Lane, N. (Eds.), Being There Even When
You Are Not: Leading Through Structures, Systems, and Processes. (Vol. 4, pp.
273-287). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
May, D. R., Chan, A. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the Moral
Component of Authentic Leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247-260.
McCall, M. W., Jr. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 3, 3-19.
McGrath, J. E. (1962). Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training. Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Friedrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic,
ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and
performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 144-160.
Northouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Offermann, L., Kennedy, J., & Wirtz, P. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content,
structure and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58.
Osborn, R. N., Hunt, J. G., & Jauch, L. R. (1980). Organizational theory: An integrated approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
Paglis, L. L., & Green, S. G. (2002). Leadership self-efficacy and managers motivation for leading change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 215-235.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

Amos and Klimoski

127

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quinn, R. W., & Worline, M. C. (2008). Enabling courageous collective action:
Conversations from United Airlines flight 93. Organization Science, 19, 497516.
Rachman, S. J. (1990). Fear and courage (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.
Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories
of courage. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 80-98.
Reardon, K. K. (2007). Courage as a Skill. Harvard Business Review, 85, 58-64.
Rogers, W. (1986). Report by the presidential commission on the shuttle challenger
accident. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Scharlatt, H., & Smith, R. (2011). Influence: Gaining Commitment, Getting Results.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Shelp, E. E. (1984). Courage: A neglected virtue in the patient-physician relationship.
Social Science & Medicine, 18, 351-360.
Shuffler, M. L., Salas, E., Yammarino, F. J., Serban, A., & Shirreffs, K. (2012).
Putting the we in leadership: Continuing the dialogue to advance our science
and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science
and Practice, 5, 437-443.
Simpson, A. (2011). Hearing before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction,
112th Cong.
Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. Leadership Quarterly, 9, 147-160.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the
literature. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25, 35-71.
Tipton, R. M., & Worthington, E. L. (1984). The measurement of generalized selfefficacy: A study of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,
545-548.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 464476.
Venkataraman, V., Green, S. G., & Schleicher, D. J. (2010). Well-Connected Leaders:
The Impact of Leaders Social Network Ties on LMX and Members Work
Attitudes. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 95, 1071-1084.
Wageman, R., Fisher, C. M., & Hackman, J. (2009). Leading Teams When the Time
is Right: Finding the Best Moments to Act. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 192203.
Wallis, N. C., Yammarino, F. J., & Feyerherm, A. (2011). Individualized leadership: A
qualitative study of senior executive leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 182-206.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S.
J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based
measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89-126.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related
diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Management, 27, 141-162.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014

128

Group & Organization Management 39(1)

Weick, K. E. (1993). The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann

Gulch Disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 628-652.
Woodard, C. R., & Pury, C. L. S. (2007). The construct of courage: Categorization
and measurement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59,
135-147.
Worline, M. C., Wrzesniewski, A., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Courage and work: Breaking
routines to improve performance. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.),
Emotions at work (pp. 295-330). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.). (2001). The nature of organizational leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting todays leaders
(The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.

Author Biographies
Benjamin Amos is a PhD student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at
George Mason University. Benjamin has received an MBA and MS in Information
Systems from the University of Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business. His
research interests center on leadership development and effective team performance.
Richard J. Klimoski is a Professor of Psychology and Management in the School of
Management at George Mason University. Klimoski received his PhD in Psychology
and Management from Purdue University in 1970. His teaching and research interests
center on effective leadership and work teams.

Downloaded from gom.sagepub.com by guest on December 12, 2014