Teacher Leadership Teams (TLTs) are cross-functional teams, and thus knowledge integration is central to their teaming. Importantly, the existing literature maintains that cross-functional teams apply the traverse or transcend approach differently to integrate divergent knowledge, but few studies have directly focused on it within the context of TLTs. Studies on leadership teams in schools have highlighted political and/or cultural perspectives and mainly stressed team/organizational conditions that might influence the TLT process of using two knowledge integration approaches. Therefore, our research analyzed how one TLT employed two knowledge integration approaches in consideration of team/organizational conditions. More specifically, we conducted qualitative research using the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory as an analytic lens. We identified that the TLT used traverse, transcend, and mixed approaches, and that its context influenced the team’s hybrid use by determining when the team utilized each approach. We believe that our findings contribute to revealing TLTs’ actual knowledge integration process by empirically examining one TLT’s use of knowledge integration approaches. Our findings also contribute to developing a more comprehensive framework to understand TLT knowledge integration by addressing existing research from political and cultural perspectives and suggesting further areas of focus (i.e., functional conditions) for future research.

The study investigated the potential role of human resources exemplified by leaders' psychological capital (PsyCap) as a resource that may cross over to team-member exchange (TMX), and bring about desired organizational outcomes. We suggest a model where TMX of senior management teams serves as a team resource mediating the relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and organizational outcomes, as represented by team innovation, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and employees’ job satisfaction. The study, carried out among 86 elementary and junior high schools, indicated a positive relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and TMX. In addition, we found a significant relationship between TMX and the three measures of organizational outcomes. Furthermore, TMX partially mediated the relationship between leaders’ PsyCap and the desired outcomes, excepting innovation. The findings provide support for the importance of the leaders’ personal resource of psychological capital as a complementary perspective that may enhance our understanding of leadership’s impact on organizational success. In addition, the study provides significant support for the expanded model, broadening the definition of the crossover model by examining the translation of positive resources from leaders' PsyCap to organizational outcomes via teams' positive resources. From a practical perspective, the findings bring to the forefront the importance of psychological capital as a state-like construct that can be developed through leader preparation and professional development programs.