This research examines how different leadership behaviors moderate the relationship between teams' reactions to conflict and their task and social outcomes. The study analyzed data from 97 teams to test a model linking teams' productive and destructive reactions to conflict with task performance and bullying behaviors, and how these relationships are influenced by transformational leadership behaviors like inspiration/vision communication and emotional leadership behaviors like emotions and conflict management. The results showed that emotional leadership was strongly related to improved task performance, while inspiration/vision communication by leaders was associated with lower levels of bullying among team members. The findings suggest leaders play an important role in managing conflict, emotions, and their consequences for team functioning and outcomes.
Original Description:
teams
Original Title
Ayoko & Callan - Teams' Reactions to Conflict and Teams' Task and Social Outcomes
This research examines how different leadership behaviors moderate the relationship between teams' reactions to conflict and their task and social outcomes. The study analyzed data from 97 teams to test a model linking teams' productive and destructive reactions to conflict with task performance and bullying behaviors, and how these relationships are influenced by transformational leadership behaviors like inspiration/vision communication and emotional leadership behaviors like emotions and conflict management. The results showed that emotional leadership was strongly related to improved task performance, while inspiration/vision communication by leaders was associated with lower levels of bullying among team members. The findings suggest leaders play an important role in managing conflict, emotions, and their consequences for team functioning and outcomes.
This research examines how different leadership behaviors moderate the relationship between teams' reactions to conflict and their task and social outcomes. The study analyzed data from 97 teams to test a model linking teams' productive and destructive reactions to conflict with task performance and bullying behaviors, and how these relationships are influenced by transformational leadership behaviors like inspiration/vision communication and emotional leadership behaviors like emotions and conflict management. The results showed that emotional leadership was strongly related to improved task performance, while inspiration/vision communication by leaders was associated with lower levels of bullying among team members. The findings suggest leaders play an important role in managing conflict, emotions, and their consequences for team functioning and outcomes.
Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social
outcomes: The moderating role of transformational
and emotional leadership Oluremi B. Ayoko * , Victor J. Callan UQ Business School, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia KEYWORDS Teams; Reactions to conict; Emotions and transformational leadership Summary This research examines the impact of various leadership behaviours on out- comes in 97 teams. In particular, the research applied the frameworks used from studies of transformational leadership and emotional leadership to examine the impact of specic features of team leader style in determining team performance, as well as inuencing social outcomes for team members. Leader behaviours that involved higher levels of emo- tional management were strongly related to improved levels of task performance. Results also revealed that higher levels of inspiration and communication of vision by leaders were directly associated with lower levels of bullying by team members. The ndings were dis- cussed in terms of the important role that leaders need to play in managing conict, emo- tions and their consequences for team performance. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Introduction In recent decades, organizations have used teams as the basic unit of structure (Devine et al., 1999) to achieve increased organizational performance (Orlitzky and Benja- min, 2003), effectiveness (Kang et al., 2006) and creativity (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004). Additionally, teamwork is employed to enhance teams social outcomes such as improving the quality of working life for members. How- ever, given difcult team interactions and processes (e.g. conict), teamwork may be inversely linked with task and social outcomes (Allen and Hecht, 2004) and team leaders are expected to manage such conict effectively. In fact, prior research indicates that twenty percent of a managers time is devoted to managing conict (Thomas and Schmidt, 1976). Yet, studies that examine the impact of leadership (i.e. transformational leadership) in conict at the team le- vel are limited (Dionne et al., 2004). In the present re- search, we ll this void by investigating the role of transformational and emotional leadership on the relation- ship between conict (and team reactions to conict) and teams task and social outcomes. Researchers dene teams variously (see Hackman and Oldham, 1976; Smith et al., 1994). In the current research, we dene teams as a set of independent parties usually 0263-2373/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2009.07.001 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3381 1082; fax: +61 7 3381 1053. E-mail address: r.ayoko@business.uq.edu.au (O.B. Ayoko). European Management Journal (2010) 28, 220 235 j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ emj small in number who recognize themselves as a team, have some degree of shared accountability (see also Cohen and Bailey, 1997) and who are collectively in charge of the achievement of one or several tasks as dened by the organization (Gladstein, 1984). Our research is focused on traditional teams where to a large extent, team members activities are directed by the leader (De Souza and Klein, 1995). Although research indicates that integrating individ- uals in team work is linked with increased innovation and employee satisfaction (Katzenbach and Smith, 2005), there is an overwhelming evidence to suggest that team work does not always bring success to organizations (Allen and Hecht, 2004; Rentsch et al., 1994; Salas et al., 1995). For instance, prior research suggests that the need for team members to establish interdependency around achieving the task (Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert, 2002), often leads to teamdynam- ics that have the potential to produce conict (Jehn, 1997). Extant conict research suggests that conict may be a doubleedged sword producing desirable outcomes such as innovation (Jehn, 1997), but also undesirable social out- comes such as animosity (Jehn, 1995). Furthermore, schol- ars report that conict is benecial for organizations and can assist in stimulating organizational performance (Tjosv- old, 1991; Jehn, 1994). Nevertheless, the results of a meta- analysis conducted by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) suggest that conict has a damaging impact on team outcomes. Based on the above, we propose that two major reasons may be accountable for the mixed ndings about the rela- tionship between conict and team outcomes. First, few studies have examined the separate impact of team mem- bers reactions to conict. Second, we argue that the lack of attention to the role of some aspects of team leadership behaviours might further explain the consistent mixed out- comes for conict in teams. Although, some studies have examined the impact of leaders behaviours and emotions on team outcomes, fewer studies have investigated the spe- cic impact of leader behaviours (e.g. transformational and emotional) on team outcomes in the presence of conict. Consequently, this current study focuses not only on team members reactions to conict and on their impacts on team outcomes, but also on the moderating role of transforma- tional and emotional leaders behavioural style upon team members reactions to conict and team outcomes. Our study makes several contributions. First, the current study departs from the tradition of studying conict and reactions to conict in a composite form (see Jehn, 1995). Specically, we build on the work of Jehn (1995, 1997), Pelled (1996) and Jehn and Chatman (2000) to test the im- pact of team members reactions to conict on various team outcomes. Secondly, we focus on teams social outcome such as bullying (Einarsen, 1999) that has the potential to in- crease stress and reduce team members well-being (Shee- han, 1999). Thirdly, given the work of George (2000), Druskat and Wolff (2001) and McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002), we extend the leadership literature by exploring more fully how transformational and emotional styles of leadership moderate the relationship between team mem- bers reactions to conict and teams outcomes. To achieve this, we developed and tested a model that species links between team members reactions to conict, transforma- tional and emotional leadership behaviours and teams task and social outcomes. Theory and hypotheses development Teamwork researchers have focused on the examination of intra-team conict using the Input-Process-Output model (IPO) (Barrick et al., 1998; Campion et al., 1993; Hackman, 1987; Pelled, 1996). Such IPO framework does not account for the intervening variables that may inuence team out- comes (Ilgen et al., 2005). Consequently, the present study departs from the IPO model to propose a frame work that examines leader behaviours as intervening variables. Espe- cially, we argue that the leaders who engage in leadership behaviours that are more transformational (e.g. inspiration and vision) and more emotional (e.g. that deals with conict and emotions management) are most likely to produce more positive team outcomes. Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework tested in this study which proposes that the im- pact of two types of team members reactions to conict (i.e. productive and destructive) upon various outcomes (i.e. task and social) is moderated by leaders behaviours such as inspiring and communicating vision as well as emo- tions and conict management. Reactions to conict In the current study, we depart from examining the effect of various types of conict on outcomes. Rather, we focus on the impact of the team members reactions to conict on team outcomes. We further argue that the mixed out- comes for conict in teams may be connected with the simultaneous testing of the combined effects of conict features and types on team outcomes. Such approach does not differentiate between the impacts of conict and other conict characteristics such as reactions to conict (see also, Ayoko and Pekerti, 2008). Yet, we know that the way individuals react to an event is an important anteced- ent to the outcome of that event (Felstiner et al., 1981). Felstiner et al. (1981) propose that disputes are social con- structs that exist in the minds of the disputants, and whether a dispute becomes a conict depends on the par- ties interpretation of that event. Similarly, Sheppard et al. (1992) argue that how one perceives, denes and interprets a conict episode is often more critical than the substantive nature of the conict itself (see Sitkin and Team reactions to conflict Productive Destructive Team outcomes Task Performance Bullying behaviors Leader behaviours Inspiration and communication of vision Emotions management Conflict management H2, H3 & H4 H1 Figure 1 The moderating role of transformational and emo- tional leadership on team members reactions to conict. Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 221 Bies, 1993). Research ndings also suggest that individuals reactions to conict differ substantially (Bennet and Savani, 2004. For example, individuals may respond with sulkiness, resentfulness or withdrawal (Bennet and Savani, 2004) while others respond with compromise and accommodation (McK- enna and Richardson, 1995). Also, the work of Jehn and Chatman (2000) reveals that individuals in teams perceive conict episode differently. Specically, Jehn and Chatman (2000) indicate that differences in the proportion of the amount of conict that individuals perceive in the team have a negative inuence on team performance. Based on the above, we argue that the differing perceptions of con- ict by team members may explain the varying reactions that team members have to conict. In the present study, we conceptualise reactions to con- ict as productive and destructive. Specically, we dene productive reactions to conict as the reactions to con- ict that enable team members to learn from disagree- ments and settle disagreements, while the destructive reactions to conict describe reactions to conict that emanate from team members failure to learn from the con- ict and their difculty in settling conict and moving on after a conict episode (Ayoko et al., 2003). We expect that productive reactions to conict that include an orientation of team members to learning from disagreements and set- tling those disagreements will produce a positive team out- come. In contrast, we propose that destructive reactions to conict that include not learning from conict and nding it difcult to settle conict and moving on after a conict event may ultimately lead to poor outcomes for individuals, teams and organizations. Reactions to conict and team outcomes We have earlier established that reactions to conict are a critical variable that can signicantly affect team work. Sim- ilarly, based on the foregoing discussion, we understand that team outcomes are consequences or results of team mem- bers collective activities and interactions. Our review of lit- erature indicate that prior research in this area has combined differing constructs of team outcomes into one broad cate- gory in measuring team outcomes, this practice has the po- tential to complicate results (Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). Given the above, our research distinguishes between teams task and social outcomes. Task outcomes pertain to the re- sults of teamactivities that quantitatively improve teampro- ductivity (e.g. performance) and assist directly in raising the organizations bottom line (Dunphy and Bryant, 1996). Addi- tionally, we use the term social outcomes to describe the re- sults of team activities that bolster or undermine members collective or shared social interaction (e.g. bullying). Reactions to conict and team task outcomes of performance So far, we have argued that employees could react to con- ict in two different ways namely: productive and destruc- tive reactions. Furthermore, prior research has shown the link between employees positive interpersonal behaviours and team and organizational effectiveness (De Dreu et al., 1999). A review of the work of Deutsch (1993a,b) suggests that team members who respond to conict collaboratively were linked with team effectiveness. Likewise, employees who dealt with conict with an open approach were posi- tively associated with organizational effectiveness (Tjosv- old et al., 2006) as well as stronger and more co-operative relationships with other employees (Tjosvold et al., 1992). In contrast, teams who respond to conict negatively through contention inuence team effectiveness negatively (see Tjosvold, 1998). Consequently, we argue that employ- ees with a productive reaction to conict will be positively related to team performance while those with destructive reactions to conict will negatively impact team perfor- mance. Therefore, we hypothesize that: H1a: Team members productive reactions to conict will be positively associated with team performance. H1b: Team members destructive reactions to conict will be negatively associated with team performance. Reactions to conict and social outcome of bullying Besides task outcomes, there are social outcomes in being a member of a team. In this research, we focus on bullying which we dene as unresolved escalated conict (Barron, 1998; Zapf, 1999). We focus on bullying because bullying behaviours such as verbal abuse, threats, sarcasm, isolation and manipulation are associated with signicant levels of stress and reduced well-being for the majority of those who experience them (Sheehan, 1999). Also, people ex- posed to long-term bullying display intense and pervasive health consequences such as psychological, psychosomatic and muscleskeletal health complaints (Einarsen, 2000). Emotional reactions such as fear, anxiety, helplessness, depression and shock accompany bullying behaviours, and bullying seems to alter the victims perceptions of their work-environment and life (Janoff-Bulman, 1992). These situations aggravate employees emotional psychosomatic and psychiatrics problems (Einarsen, 2000) and may eventu- ally lead to poor job satisfaction. As opposed to destructive leaders (Einarsen et al., 2007) who themselves engage in bullying behaviours, the current research focuses on the moderating role of transfor- mational leadership style on the link between team mem- bers reactions to conict and team outcomes. As far as we are aware, little research has examined the link between conict reactions, bullying, and the behaviours (actions) of team leaders. Given that how individuals interpret and react to an event is critical to the outcome of such event (Felstiner et al., 1981; Sheppard et al., 1992), we propose that the way in which team members react to conict will inuence their level of perceived bullying. For example, we propose that team members who are willing to learn from a conict epi- sode will be more likely to experience reduced bullying. Con- versely, team members who are not willing to learn from conict will be more likely to experience increased bullying. Consequently, we hypothesize that: H1c: Team members productive reactions to conict will be negatively linked with bullying. H1d: Team members destructive reactions to conict will be positively linked with bullying. 222 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan Reactions to conict, team outcomes and transformational leadership Jackson and Joshi (2004) suggest that the ultimate responsi- bility for effective management of workgroups lies with the group leaders who co-ordinate the efforts of group mem- bers. Specically, leaders inuence team members atti- tudes, behaviours and social processes (Fu and Yukl, 2000; Lord et al., 1999). Moreover, the work of Stewart and Manz (1995) shows that leadership, or a lack of it, is a major cause of failures to implement successful team-based work sys- tems in many organizations. A review of literature suggests that leaders establish two major styles in dealing with their followers: transactional and transformational (Bass, 1985; Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Our fo- cus is on transformational (rather than transactional) lead- ership style because the key constructs in our research are emotions and conict and according to George (2000), transformational leadership is more connected with issues of emotions. Rather than an exchange relationship that seeks to gain and reward compliance (transactional leadership style) (Yukl, 1999a), transformational leaders appeal to their fol- lowers and motivate them to attain performance that is over and above expectations. They do this by transforming the attitudes and beliefs of their followers (Yukl, 1999a, b). In particular, transformational leaders engage in higher levels of effort in terms of showing to their followers more individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation (Avolio and Bass, 1995; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). Such leaders inspire their followers to achieve a vision (Bass, 1998; Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999). According to Rafferty and Grifn (2004), vision is an expression of an idealized picture of the future based around group and organizational values, while inspirational motivation is the expression of positive and encouraging messages about the group or organization that build motiva- tion and condence. Overall, both vision and inspirational motivation in particular are central components to transfor- mational leadership (Rafferty and Grifn, 2004). In addi- tion, Bass (1998) reports that team members feel more highly motivated and strongly connected to transforma- tional leaders. This may partly be explained by the fact that transformational behaviours ow from the leaders levels of self-condence, enthusiasm and their awareness of the emotional needs of team members (Cherulnik et al., 2001). Given that conict is a major part of group processes that have a signicant impact on outcomes (Jehn, 1997), Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2007) argue that transformational leaders who engage in a range of behaviours to communi- cate and promote vision implementation will act as a role model not only in inspiring followers to implement the vi- sion (see also Bass, 1985) but also in setting the pace for effective interaction patterns and behaviours for positive teams task and social outcomes. The on-going discussion suggests that the team members reactions to conict and the resultant outcomes will be inuenced by the team lead- ers vision and inspirational motivation given to their team members. For example, we anticipate that leaders who dis- play transformational behaviours will moderate the way team members interpret and react to conict. Similarly, such displays of transformational leadership will inuence the effect of team members reactions (especially, negative reactions) on team outcomes of performance and bullying. Consequently, we hypothesize that: H2a: Leader transformational behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and team task performance, such that teams with higher levels of productive reactions to conict and trans- formational leadership will be linked with higher levels of team task performance. H2b: Leader transformational behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and team task performance, such that teams with higher levels of destructive reactions to conict but with transformational leadership will be linked with higher levels of team task performance. H2c: Leader transformational behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and team bullying such that teams with higher lev- els of productive reactions to conict and transformational leadership will be linked with lower levels of bullying. H2d: Leader transformational behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and team bullying such that teams with higher lev- els of destructive reactions to conict but with transforma- tional leadership will be linked with lower levels of bullying in the team. Reactions to conict, team outcomes and the emotions management behaviours of leaders Research investigating the emotional dimensions of working in teams and how these relate to team leadership, team processes and to team performance is limited (Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). For example, a major event that can occur in teams is conict and in particular, task and relationship conict engender high levels of emotional response among group members (Jehn, 1995). This means that leaders need to be able to manage not only the conict events, but also the emotional responses to conict. Explicitly, the behav- iours of the leader can assist in setting boundaries around inappropriate emotional play in the team which may reduce the frequency of conict while preventing conict escala- tion. Because the way employees interpret organizational events (e.g. conict) can have a critical impact on individ- uals experience of emotions (Speisman et al., 1964), we ex- pect team leaders to be able to clarify the non-competitive intensions of team members (Pondy, 1967). In spite of the above, research has still not provided con- vincing evidence of the key dimensions of transformational leadership (see Avolio et al., 1999; Rafferty and Grifn, 2004). Moreover, little is known about the inuence of transformational leadership on team performance (Bass et al., 2003; Dionne et al., 2004) on intra-team conict. Also, recent debates about emotions and emotional intelli- gence are leading to proposals that we need to revise and extend our understanding of the nature of transformational leadership and to pay more attention to how leaders express and use emotions to inspire and to motivate their followers Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 223 (George, 2000). Consequently, researchers are increasingly exploring issues around emotional management by leaders and their followers. According to Cherulnik et al. (2001), leaders behaviours impact upon group members affective states. For example, George (2000) argues that transformational leadership is primarily based on emotional processes, including the abil- ity to appraise others emotions, as well as being able to effectively portray emotions (see also Prati et al., 2003). Additionally, effective leaders display emotion and evoke emotions in others (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995), as well as move group members through various emotions as they achieve group goals (Hateld et al., 1994). In the present research, we agree with Humphreys (2002) position that a key leadership function is to manage the emotions of group members. Based on the above and for the purpose of the current study, we conceptualise emo- tional leadership as a component of transformational lead- ership style that involves the management of emotions in team processes. Given the potential of conict to be emo- tionally laden (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001), we also con- ceptualise emotional leadership as involving conict management. Humphrey (2002) proposes that transforma- tional leaders engage in behaviours that inspire a shared vi- sion, as well as demonstrate strong emotional management of the self and others. Others such as McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) propose that one of the key functions of transformational leaders is to help followers to deal with the emotions associated with their failures and successes. Their research indicates that leaders who did this well have a larger impact upon follower performance. In addition, ndings from a study of R and D teams by Pirola-Merlo and his associates (2002) show that more effective team leaders are better at managing negative events that affect the team. These leaders have a more transformational style that promotes vision and inspiration which, in turn, encour- ages team members to appraise more positively any nega- tive events and obstacles that occur. Considering the above, we propose that leaders who are able to display emotional management behaviours will moderate the im- pact of team members reactions to conict on teams task and social outcomes. Teams with leaders who demonstrate emotions management behaviours will have increased task performance and low levels bullying. Consequently, we hypothesize that: H3a: Leader emotional management behaviours will mod- erate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and team task performance such that teams with higher levels of productive reactions to conict and leaders that are high in emotional management behaviours will be positively associated with higher levels of team task performance. H3b: Leader emotional management behaviours will mod- erate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and team task performance such that teams with higher levels of destructive reactions to conict but with leaders that are high in emotional management behaviours will be positively associated with higher levels of team task performance. H3c: Leader emotional management behaviours will mod- erate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and bullying such that teams with higher levels of productive reactions to conict and leaders that are high in emotional management behaviours will be associated with low levels of bullying. H3d: Leader emotional management behaviours will mod- erate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and team bullying such that teams with higher levels of destructive reactions to conict but with leaders that are high in emotional management behaviours will be linked with lower levels of bullying. Reactions to conict, team outcomes and leaders conict management behaviours Leaders are also managers of conict and various surveys continue to reveal that managers perceive dealing with con- ict as one of their most difcult tasks (Skjorshammer, 2001). There is also evidence that attempts to implement team-based structures meet with resistance due to the fear among leaders, as well as members, that they will not be able to manage the conict that arises from the differences of opinions that emerge in teams (Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997). In addition, research reveals that conict typically starts small, but then spirals out of control. In some cases, it results in violent reactions (Robinson and OLeary-Kelly, 1998), withdrawal and teams disband (Duffy et al., 2000) due to their inability to deal with interpersonal tension (Ar- row et al., 2000). Furthermore, DeChurch and Marks (2001) found that when agreeable conict management strategies are used, team members report more satisfaction with the team thus preserving the relationships within the team. They also found support for the use of active avoidance conict man- agement tactics as moderators of the relationship between task conict and overall group performance. When group members adopt more active means of resolving and manag- ing conicts, they are able to manage the conict towards productive, benecial group outcomes. In the present study, we propose that team conict management behav- iours will have an inuence on how well reactions to conict translate to effective group performance. A major player in managing conict and assisting team members to manage conict is a team leader who is equipped with conict management skills. In a study by West and his associates (2003), leadership clarity was asso- ciated with stronger team processes around clarity of objec- tives, levels of participation, commitment to excellence, and support for innovation. In the same study, team pro- cesses were more positive when leaders led clearly. In spite of the above ndings, research that examines the impact of transformational and emotional leadership in conict pro- cesses is limited. In the current research, we follow Dionne and colleagues (2004) to argue that the transformational leadership dimension of intellectual stimulation can create an environment, where questioning assumptions and invent- ing new uses for old processes stimulates a healthy form of conict (Bass, 1985, 1990). In addition, studies show that underlying differences among team members are associated 224 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan with higher levels of performance when group processes are carefully controlled (Mannix and Neale, 2005). For example, a leaders use of intellectual stimulation demonstrates his/ her belief that when conict is managed, the resulting inno- vation can lead to better team performance and decision- making (Bass and Avolio, 1994). In addition, ndings from the research by De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2002) indi- cate that leaders charisma is positively correlated with fol- lowers cooperation. Surprisingly, however, examinations of how well leaders apply conict management behaviour and the consequences have received little attention (Van Diere- ndonck et al., 2002). Besides, Bodtker and Jameson (2001) suggest that human conict does not exist in the absence of emotions. Also, pre- vious research suggests that potentially damaging negative emotions are evoked during conict (Lovelace et al., 2001). Team members disagreements can also be inter- preted as personal attacks (Simons and Peterson, 2000), and the expression of emotions during conict can escalate through emotional contagion (Hateld et al., 1994). We ar- gue therefore, that conict is usually accompanied by nega- tive emotions of frustrations, fear and anxiety that act as cues to inuence team members reactions towards conict. We have established that transformational leaders are able to encourage their followers to think in new ways (Sosik et al., 1997) and challenge traditions, values and beliefs (Ha- ter and Bass, 1988). Therefore, we propose that transforma- tional leaders will inuence their team members perspective about a given conict. Overall, teams with lead- ers who are able to manage conict especially team mem- bers reactions to conict, will also report increased performance but reduced levels of bullying. Therefore, we hypothesize that: H4a: Leader conict management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and teamtask performance such that teams with high levels of productive reactions to conict and with leaders that are high in conict management behaviours will be positively associated with increased team task performance. H4b: Leader conict management behaviours will moderate therelationshipbetween teams destructive reactions to con- ict and teams task performance such that teams with high levels of destructive reactions to conict but with leaders that are high in conict management behaviours will be pos- itively associated with increased team task performance. H4c: Leader conict management behaviours will moder- ate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and teams bullying such that teams with high levels of productive reactions to conict and with leaders that are high in conict management behaviours will be associated with lower levels of bullying. H4d: Leader conict management behaviours will moder- ate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and teams bullying such that teams with high levels of destructive reactions to conict but with leaders that are high in conict management behaviours will be associated with lower levels of bullying. Method Sample The present study is a part of a large research program examining teamwork and team leadership. We collected cross-sectional data from 97 workgroups comprising 582 respondents (97 group leaders, and 485 group members) in public sector organization in one of the northern states of Australia. Participating teams were involved in maintenance and improvement of road networks. In total, 58 percent of the participants were male, while 42 percent were female. The age distributions were: 1520 years (3 percent), 21 30 years (20 percent), 3140 years (23 percent), 41 50 years (32 percent), 5160 years (21 percent), and 61 years and above (1 percent). Participating teams were at the lower and middle levels of management and members came from culturally diverse backgrounds. All respondents reported that they belonged to a team, and believed that customers, clients or other staff recognized them as a mem- ber of this work team. Procedure To collect data, we designed and used two forms of a 10- page questionnaire: a leader and team member survey. The self-administered questionnaires were either handed onto respondents in person or mailed to them. Overall, we mailed 1200 questionnaires to participating organizations. All participating teams completed the questionnaire. The response rate was 44 percent. Questionnaire development In the design stages of the current research, we performed a number of activities in an attempt to minimize common methods bias. First, we obtained our measures of predictors and criterion variables from different sources (Podsakoff et al., 2003) such as team leaders and members. Secondly, we protected the respondents anonymity to reduce evalua- tion apprehension. Specically, we allowed respondents an- swers to be anonymous and we assured them that there was no right or wrong answers. We took this action to minimize the respondents tendency to be socially desirable, lenient or acquiescent in their responses (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thirdly, we counter balanced the question order on the survey, while the scale items were carefully con- structed. In particular, most of the scales used in the pres- ent research have a history of reliability and in addition, we pre-tested all items for their reliability in a pilot study with a sample of 180 staff from both public and private sector organizations. Furthermore, we asked questions about some constructs in more than one way to help reduce common methods bias (see Podsakoff et al., 2003). Fourthly, Doty and Glick (1998) indicate that common method variance is particularly complex where mediating effects are hypothe- sized. Our research hypothesized moderating effects and the variables had acceptable levels of correlation (see Table 1). Overall, although scholars raise concerns regarding com- mon methods, most research ndings are not affected by them (Doty and Glick, 1998). Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 225 Also, in the main study, we conducted factor analysis to determine the underlying structure of the data. We used principal component analysis with varimax rotation to max- imize the variance in the data (Tabachnick and Fidell, 1996). We examined factor loadings across the analyses and selected the nal factors on the most consistent factor structure. Coefcient alphas ranged from 0.71 to 0.95 (see Table 2). While a number of scales were signicantly corre- lated at p < 0.01, there was no evidence of unacceptable levels of multicollinearity. Measures Reactions to conict Previous conict measures do not distinguish well between the effects of the productive and destructive reactions to conict. In measuring team members reactions to conict, our attention was on the team members general disposition or ways of reacting to conict in the team. We adapted Jehns (1995) conict scales to measure reactions to conict (see also Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Pelled, 1996). This six- item Likert scale includes two new items that measured the group members positive (productive) and negative (destructive) reactions to conict. For example, items about the productive reactions to conict scale included: People in my workgroup react positively to disagreement. Items on the destructive reactions to conict scale include: People in my workgroup react to disagreements negatively Re- sponses were rated from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The reliability scores for productive and destruc- tive reactions to conict were 0.72 and 0.71, respectively. We sourced data for the team reactions to conict from combined responses of both team members and leaders. Leadership behaviours We measured the perceptions of leader behaviours with both leaders self- rating and team members rating in each of the participating teams. In addition, we measured leader transformational behaviours of inspiration and communica- tion of vision with the 5-item Likert scale from the Project Leadership Questionnaire (Bain and Mann, 1997). The mea- sure examined perceptions of leadership behaviours such as communicating vision, advising and inspiring the team. Items on the scale included leader motivates team to do the work, and leader communicates a vision of the tasks possibilities. The reliability score was 0.89. Furthermore, leader emotions management behaviours were measured with adapted WEIP Version 5 (Jordan et al., 2002). Items on the scale included: Leader is able to identify for team members the positive side of negative events, Leader is Table 2 Correlation matrix for variables used in the study. Productive reaction to conict Destructive reaction to conict Performance crce Bullying Leader management of conict Leader inspiration and communication of vision Leader management of emotions Productive reaction to conict (0.72) Destructive reaction to conict 0.59 ** (71) Performance 0.25 * 0.33 ** (0.78) Bullying 0.56 ** 0.32 ** 0.24 * (0.92) Leader management of conict 0.16 0.05 0.16 * 0.22 * (0.75) Leader inspiration and communication of vision 0.26 ** 0.56 ** 0.30 ** 0.35 ** 0.06 (0.89) Leader management of emotions 0.07 0.04 0.43 ** 0.02 0.13 0.05 (0.75) Note: Alpha reliability coefcients are in boldface along the diagonal. Correlations are signicant at p, 0.05 and 0.01 (two-tailed). Table 1 Means, standard deviations and reliabilities of variables used in the study. Variable M SD Reliabilities 1. Productive reaction to conict 3.16 0.89 0.72 2. Destructive reaction to conict 2.60 0.80 0.71 3. Leader conict management 15.24 2.93 0.75 4. Leader emotions management 3.79 0.43 0.75 5. Leader tranf. behaviours 3.46 0.84 0.89 6. Task performance 3.95 0.74 0.78 7. Bullying 0.50 0.63 0.92 226 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan able to cheer members up when they are feeling down, and If team members become frustrated, leader can usu- ally help them to overcome this feeling. The reliability score for the scale was 0.75. Finally, we measured leaders conict management behaviours with an adapted Rahims (1983) six-item conict management scale. Sample items in the scale included: leader usually brings all pertinent is- sues in the open to reach a solution that integrates all points of view, leader usually adopts an approach where differ- ences are split and leader encourages parties in dispute to give something up to nd the middle ground for a solution. The reliability score was 0.75. Team outcome measures We measured task (performance) and social (bullying) out- comes. In order to comprehensively assess team success, Hackman (1987), suggests the importance of capturing team performance and this is usually based on supervisors rating of team productivity (Barrick et al., 1998). We measured task outcomes with an adaptation of Jehns (1995) group effectiveness scale. The scale consists of three items such as How effective is your workgroup. The scale is a 5- point Likert scale with anchors ranging from Not at all effective (1) and Very effective (5). The reliability score was 0.78. We sourced data for the team performance from combined responses of both team members and leaders. Team members experiences of bullying behaviours were measured with Rayners (1999) 15-item Likert scale. The scale measured the intensity of a variety of bullying behav- iours experienced by participants in the previous six months. Intensity was rated as every day (4), every week (3), every month (2), less than once a month (1) and never (0). The reliability coefcient was 0.92. Data preparation We conducted an initial exploratory factor analysis to deter- mine the underlying structure of the data and to establish empirical distinctiveness of the scales used in the current study. Factor loadings were examined across the analyses. All factor analyses supported the proposed factors. Tables 1 and 2 presents the descriptive, reliabilities and correla- tions for items used in the study. Data analysis To analyze the data for the current study, for each of the variables depicted in our model, we aggregated individual scores to produce a team score. Then, we followed the pro- cedures advised by Baron and Kenny (1986) for testing mod- eration. For example, all of the variables in the current research were centred by subtracting their means from the original score to give the adjusted or centred group scores. In addition, to determine the interaction between the affected variables, new interaction variables were com- puted by multiplying the centred component variables in- volved in the interaction process (see Baron and Kenny, 1986; Finney et al., 1984). Data aggregation The unit of analysis for the current research is at the team level. According to Bliese (2000) aggregation of data to the team level can not be performed without theoretical and statistical support. Our aggregation of individual rating to the team level is theoretically supported because team members reactions to conict and team outcomes are prop- erties of the team. Also, given Blieses (2000) recommenda- tions, we conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs to examine within and between team variance for each of the team constructs in the study. Results of the ANOVA outputs were signicant at 0.01 and 0.001 levels and conrmed that var- iance within team variance was less than variance between teams signifying a greater than chance similarity among team members (Bliese, 2000). Based on the signicant ANO- VAs, we computed ICC (1) and ICC (2) for the constructs (Bli- ese, 2000). The mean ICC (1) score for all the scales in the current study was 0.20 while the mean ICC (2) was 0.71. The ICC(1) and ICC(2) scores fall within the recommended stan- dard mean (Bliese, 2000; Dirks, 2000; James, 1982).On the whole, we concluded that there was enough justication for data aggregation based on the established theoretical justication and also on the ICC (1) and ICC (2) scores. Results Our model depicted leader behaviours as having a moderat- ing effect on the relationship between reactions to conict and team outcomes. The descriptive statistics of the vari- ables in the study are presented in Table 1. To examine the depicted relationships on the model, we conducted sev- eral regression analyses following Baron and Kenny (1986). Firstly, we entered reactions to conict events variables (productive and destructive) in the rst block of the regres- sion block as independent variables. Secondly, we entered the entire leader measures (i.e. leader inspiration and com- munication of vision, leader emotions management skills and leaders conict management behaviours) as indepen- dent variables into the second block of the regression. Thirdly, we entered the interaction products of the reac- tions to conict and the leader intervention variables as independent variables into the third regression block. Final- ly, the predictors were regressed on each one of the depen- dent variables. We repeated the process for each of the outcome variables depicted in the model. Given that the goal of the study was to identify which regression model ex- plains the most variance in the relationships hypothesized in the conceptual model, only the last signicant block of each regression analysis was interpreted. Table 3 present details of the results including the regression block interpreted and the changes in the contributions of each set of predictors for each of the regression analyses. Below, we describe the results of the series of multiple regressions conducted to test the links between the variables depicted on our model. The path between reaction to conict, leader behaviours and task outcomes of performance Reactions to conict and team task performance In the rst multiple regressions, we were interested in test- ing several hypotheses connected with the relationship be- tween reactions to conict, leader behaviour variables and team task performance. The multiple regression was Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 227 signicant (F (11, 83) = 5.9, p< 0.001), explaining 48 percent of the variance. In hypothesis 1a, we hypothesised that team members reactions to conict will be positively asso- ciated with team task performance while in hypothesis 1b, we hypothesised that team members destructive reactions to conict will be negatively associated with team task performance. The link between productive reactions to con- ict, leader behaviour and performance was non-signicant so H1a was not supported. However, destructive reactions to conict were strongly predictive of task performance in the teams (see Table 3). Lower levels of destructive reac- tions to conict (Beta = 0.32, p < 0.05) were associated with high levels of task performance. Based on the above re- sults, H1b was supported. Leader transformational behaviours as moderators of reactions to conict and task performance To examine the moderating role of leader transformational leadership in the link between reactions to conict and task performance, we tested two hypotheses - H2a and H2b. H2a predicted that leader transformational behaviours will mod- erate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and teams task performance. Results of the regression output indicated that the predicted interaction in H2a was not signicant so H2a was not supported. In H2b, we predicted that leader transformational behav- iours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and teams task perfor- mance. Regression results showed a predicted interaction effect between destructive reaction to conict and leader inspiration and communication of vision to predict team task performance (see Figure 2). Results suggests that the level of leader inspiration and communication of vision made little difference to performance when destructive reactions to conict were low, but a large difference emerged when destructive reactions to conict were high (Beta = 0.32, p < 0.001). This result also suggests that when there were high levels of destructive reactions to conict, and high levels of leader inspiration and communication of vision, teams task performance was increased. Given the above, H2b was supported. Leader emotions management behaviours as moderators of reactions to conict and task performance H3a predicted that leader emotions management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and team task performance while H3b predicted that leader emotional management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and team task performance. Regression Table 3 Hierarchical multiple regression predicting reactions to conict, leader transformational and emotional style and team outcomes. Step Variable Task performance Bullying R 2 R 2 ch. F df Beta R 2 R 2 ch. F df Beta 1 Productive reactions to conict 0.13 0.13 5.98 2, 80 0.31 0.31 17.66 *** 2, 83 Destructive reactions to conict 2 Productive reactions to conict 0.35 0.22 8.15 *** 5, 82 0.36 0.06 8.79 *** 5, 83 Destructive reactions to conict Leader emotions management Leader inspira. & comm. of vision 0.37 *** Leader conict mang. skills 3 Productive reactions to conict 0.48 0.13 5.93 *** 11, 83 Destructive reactions to conict 0.32 * Leader emotions management 0.39 *** Leader insp. & comm. of vision 0.21 * 0.34 *** Leader conict management skills Prod. reactions to conf. X ld emotions mang. 0.50 0.14 6.43 *** 11, 88 Dest reaction to con. X ld emotions mang.. Prod. reaction to con X Ld comm.. of vision Dest. reaction to conf X ld comm.. of vision 0.32 *** Prod reactions to con x ld conf mang. Dest reaction to con. x Ld conf mang. Note: N = 97. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. 228 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan outputs testing these hypotheses were non-signicant. Therefore, H3a and H3b were not supported. Direct effects of leader emotions management behaviours and team task performance Although we did not hypothesize a direct link between lea- der behaviours and team performance, regression outputs showed that high levels of leader emotions management behaviours (Beta = 0.39, p < 0.001) were strongly and posi- tively related to higher team task performance. Similarly, leader inspiration and communication of vision (Beta = 0.21, p < 0.05) was predictive of team task performance. Teams with high levels of leader inspiration and communication of vision were associated with increased team task performance. Reactions to conict, leader conict management behaviours and team task performance We hypothesised in H4a that leader conict management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and teams task perfor- mance while in H4b, we predicted that leader conict man- agement behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and teams task per- formance. Results of the regression testing both H4a and H4b were non-signicant and consequently they were not supported. The path between reactions to conict, leader behaviours and social outcome of bullying Reactions to conict and bullying The third set of analyses examined the social outcome of bullying behaviours. Results of the regression analyses testing the link between reactions to conict, leader trans- formational behaviours and bullying were signicant, explaining 50 percent of the variance (F (11, 88) = 6.43, p < 0.001. Especially, we predicted in H1c that team mem- bers productive reactions will be negatively related to bul- lying. The link between productive reactions to conict and bullying was non-signicant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1c was not supported. Also in H1d, we predicted that team mem- bers destructive reactions to conict will be positively linked with bullying. Our results indicated that higher levels of destructive reactions to conict was signicantly related to increased bullying (Beta = 0.35, p < 0.001). Based on these results, H1d was supported. Reactions to conict, leader transformational behaviours (visions and inspiration) and bullying H2c predicted that transformational leadership behaviours (vision and inspiration) will moderate the link between pro- ductive reactions to conict and bullying. Leader inspiration and communication of vision was strongly linked to bullying. Lower levels of leader inspiration and communication of vi- sion were directly associated with perceptions of higher lev- els of bullying in the groups (Beta = 0.34, p < 0.001). In addition, results of the third regression outputs showed that productive reaction to conict interacted with leader inspi- ration and communication of vision (Beta = 0.36, p < 0.01) for bullying (see Figure 3). Specically, there was an in- crease in bullying in teams where there were lower levels of productive reactions to conict and when leader inspira- tion and communication of vision were low. Given the above results, H2c was supported. In addition, we hypothesised in H2d that transforma- tional leadership behaviours will moderate the link between destructive reactions to conict and the bullying. Results of the regression analyses testing this path were not signicant so H2d was not supported. Reactions to conict, leader emotions management behaviours and bullying Furthermore, we hypothesised in H3c that leader emotions management behaviours will moderate the relationship be- tween teams productive reactions to conict and bullying. The interaction between productive reactions to conict and leader emotions management behaviours to predict bul- lying was non-signicant. Therefore, H3c was not sup- ported. Also in H3d, we hypothesised that leader emotions management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reactions to conict and bully- ing. Results showed an interaction between destructive Plot of Interaction -0.600 -0.500 -0.400 -0.300 -0.200 -0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 Des react to conflict -Low Des react to conflict -High Leader inspiration & vision-Low Leader inspiration & vision-High
G r o u p
t a s k
p e r f o r m a n c e Figure 2 Plot of interaction between destructive reaction to conict and leader inspiration and vision predicting group task performance. Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 229 reactions to conict and leader emotions management behaviours was predictive of bullying (Beta = 0.28, p < 0.05). Bullying was higher in teams where destructive reactions to conict were higher and when the leader was higher on emotions management behaviours. Given the above results, H3d was supported. Reactions to conict, leader conict management and bullying H4c predicted that leader conict management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams productive reactions to conict and teams bullying while H4d pre- dicted that leader conict management behaviours will moderate the relationship between teams destructive reac- tions to conict and teams bullying. Results of the regres- sion outputs testing these links were not signicant so H4c and H4d were not supported. Discussion The main purpose of this paper was to examine the moder- ating impacts of various transformational and emotional leadership behaviours on conict and emotions on teams task and social outcomes. According to Pescosolido (2002), research in the area of emergent (emotional) leadership should explore the role of leadership within an interact- ing group (Yukl, 1999) and not just as part of a dyadic rela- tionship involving one leader and one follower (p. 596). This study responds to this call by testing some aspects of emotional leadership in teams. In particular, four sets of hypotheses were predicted based on the links depicted on our model. Our discussion of result is organized around these hypotheses. Reactions to conict and team outcomes Overall, there was a general support for the rst set of hypotheses. Low levels of destructive reactions to conict were associated with increased levels of team task perfor- mance (H1b) while higher levels of destructive reactions were linked with increased bullying (H1d). These ndings indicate that team members reactions to conict have sig- nicant impact on team outcomes and further corroborate previous research in this area (see Felstiner et al., 1981; Sheppard et al., 1992; Sitkin and Bies, 1993). Although pre- vious research showed a negative relationship between intragroup conict and group outcomes (Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999; Tjosvold, 1998), what is less understood is the impact of employees reactions to conict on group outcomes. The ndings from the current research did not only support prior research but further revealed that reac- tions to conict are associated with task performance and bullying. These ndings extend the conict literature by suggesting that reactions to conict are important predic- tors of teams task and social outcomes. Our ndings that destructive reactions to conict, rather than positive reac- tions to conict, have signicant effects on team out- comes (task, social) may have a range of possible explanations. For instance, there is a possibility that the experience of conict that elicits a productive reaction is not as salient as those that elicit destructive reactions to conict in the teams that we studied. Also based on the eld theory (Lewin, 1943), more distal elements impact upon individual reactions if features of such elements are salient. Furthermore, unpleasant emotions usually lead to greater emotional contagion (Barsade, 2002). Additionally, research shows that people respond differently to positive and negative stimuli and negative events tend to elicit stronger emotions than positive events (Cacioppo et al., 1997). In the same vein, studies suggests that people tend to put more weight on negative information where subjects per- ceive negative words or personal attributes as more nega- tive than they perceive equally matched positive messages as being positive (Crandall, 1975). Previous research reports similar outcomes for negative emotions. For example, when people try to determine their affective state, cues about negative rather than positive emotions have been found to be more relevant to them (Malasch, 1979). Altogether, destructive reactions to conict, rather than positive reac- tions to conict, appear to be more salient to team mem- bers and leaders while the perception of these destructive reactions to conict was more successful in predicting out- comes in teams. Plot of Interaction -0.400 -0.300 -0.200 -0.100 0.000 0.100 0.200 Prod. Reaction to conflict-Low Prod. Reaction to conflict-High
B u l l y i n g
Leader inspiration & vision -Low Leader inspiration & vision-High Figure 3 Plot of interaction between leader inspiration/vision and productive reaction to conict predicting bullying. 230 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan Another explanation for the strength of these destructive reactions to conict emerges from attribution theory (Wei- ner, 1986). When individuals perceive an actor to be respon- sible for a harmful outcome, they regard the actor as failing to meet performance expectations, and they are likely to ascribe blame (Weiner, 1986). Past research in leader attri- bution suggests that leaders are far more likely to be iden- tied as the cause of team failures than the team as a collective (Naquin and Tynan, 2003). Team literature also indicates that team members view their leaders behaviours in the early stages of team development as the main cause of what transpires in the team (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). Moreover, the links between team failures and nega- tive attributions of leaders might also explain why, in the present study, leader behaviours emerged as a contributor only with negative experiences and consequent to destruc- tive reactions to conict and not with productive reactions to conict. Reaction to conict, leader transformational behaviours and team performance Previous research has linked transformational leadership with positive aspects of team performance (Dionne et al., 2004). For example, Kahai et al. (2000) found that transfor- mational leaders are likely to increase group performance. Consistent with these ndings, our results show that the teams that reported higher levels of destructive reactions to conict, but had leaders with high levels of inspiration and communication of vision, reported increased levels of team task performance (H2b). These ndings are generally consistent with previous ndings in this area. For example, Dionne and colleagues (2004) argue that transformational leadership may be aligned to critical team work processes to develop team communication and conict management skills that can promote improved groups performance. Our ndings conrm this proposition. Our ndings are also consis- tent with empirical results in this area. For example, Keller (1992) showed that transformational leadership successfully predicted higher project quality and budget/schedule per- formance of research and development project groups. Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2007) propose that transforma- tional leadership behaviour may be a double edged sword that increases the potential to unwittingly ignite dispro- portionately high levels of affective team conict(pg 38). Our ndings are contrary to this proposition as they have shown that transformational leaders have a signicant positive impact on team outcomes. Our results are also con- sistent with ndings from the study by Pirola-Merlo and his associates (2002). In their study, Pirola-Merlo and his col- leagues (2002), report that effective team leaders with more transformational styles (e.g. inspiration and vision) were better at managing negative events that affected the team (see also Rafferty and Grifn, 2004). Our results conrm their ndings. Reaction to conict, leader emotions management behaviours and bullying The present study also showed that teams that experienced higher levels of destructive reactions to conict and with team leaders that had higher levels of emotions manage- ment behaviours, were more prone to report increased lev- els of bullying (H3d). This nding demonstrates the importance of studying team members reactions to conict especially in the management of bullying in work teams. From the work of Barron (1998) and Zapf (1999), we know that bullying is highly connected with conict. Also, given that our results show that higher levels of destructive reac- tions to conict are linked with increased bullying; leaders need to assist team members in fostering a productive reac- tion to conict but with a caution. The fact that teams with high levels of destructive reactions to conict and with leaders with higher levels of emotions management were linked with increased bullying suggests that there is a possi- bility that team members may have negative perceptions of their leaders emotions management behaviours. This may also explain why earlier studies in the area of bullying sug- gest that the majority of the employees perceived their supervisors as bullies (Sheehan, 1999). Over all, leaders with high emotions management behaviours need to be cautious so their behaviours do not come across as negative. This has implications for a thorough training in emotions manage- ment skills. Our study is one of the few empirical efforts to have examined the relationships between leadership transforma- tional and emotional behaviours, conict, and teams task and social outcomes. The insights gained from our study are important, but the study has a number of limitations. First, our sample was drawn from the public sector and may not be representative of most organizations. However, we do believe that our sample is representative of work- groups in the public sector organizations. In future, researchers should strive for a broader sample especially from the private sector. Secondly, our main focus was on gathering data from work teams generally and we have not controlled for gender, personality and organizational ef- fects in the study. Future research should explore the im- pact of gender, personality and organizational effects on leadership behaviours that are geared towards managing conict and emotions to promote effective task and social outcomes in teams. Finally, we aggregated individual scores to the group level in analysing data for current research. Consequently, characteristics at the lower levels might have been lost. More research is needed to extricate the full ef- fect of leaders transformational and emotional behaviours on outcomes in teams. In particular, future research should now examine the multilevel effects of the variables hypoth- esised in the current study. In practice, Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2006) propose that different leadership styles can have different effects on the degree and the nature of conict generated in work teams. Overall, our ndings support this proposition for transforma- tional and emotional leadership. Specically, our results im- ply that leaders competency in emotions management behaviours and other transformational behaviours such as creating a vision are important for managing and leading teams. For example, leaders that are more transformational are more likely to promote a more supportive team climate that gives team members a sense of emotional security and a greater basis for more coordinated efforts (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995). In addition, managers and team leaders with better developed emotions management skills are Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 231 possibly more able to diffuse destructive reactions to con- ict and to reduce bullying behaviours in teams. The above suggests the need to train team leaders in emotions man- agement skills while developing their competency in trans- formational behaviours. In conclusion, the present research focused on employ- ees reactions to conict in teams and we put forward lead- ership as a moderator of the link between team members reactions to conict and team outcomes of performance and bullying. We argue that the team leader serves as a bridge that connects team members in meaningful ways to reaching team goals (see Mannix and Neale, 2005). The nd- ings from the present study support the need to continue to review our broader interpretation of transformational styles of leadership and to give greater recognition to the signi- cant role that leaders have in the management of emotions as well as the emotional consequences for teams. References Allen, K. E. and Hecht, T. D. (2004) The romance of teams: Toward the understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology 77(4), 439462. Arrow, H., McGrath, J. E. and Berdahl, J. L. (2000) Small groups as complex systems formation, coordination, development and adaptation. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Ashforth, R. E. and Humphrey, R. H. (1995) Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal. Human Relations 48, 97125. Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M. (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leader- ship Quarterly 6(2), 199218. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M. and Jung, D. I. (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72, 441462. Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J. and Ha rtel, C. E. J. (2003) Intragroup conict, emotional reactions to bullying and counterproductive behaviours. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 11(4), 283301. Ayoko, O. B. and Pekerti, A. A. (2008) The mediating and moderating effects of conict and communication openness on workplace trust. International Journal of Conict Management 19(4), 297318. Bain, P., and Mann, L. (1997) Project leadership in Australian R and D: Perceptions of performance and effectiveness. In Best paper and abstract proceedings, 2nd Australian industrial and organi- zational psychology conference ed. P. Tharenou, pp. 48. Melbourne, Australia. Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 11731182. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J. and Mount, M. K. (1998) Relating member ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy 83(3), 377391. Barron, O. (1998) The distinction between workplace bullying and workplace violence and ramications for OHS. The Journal of Occupational Health and Safety 14(6), 575580. Barsade, S. G. (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its inuence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 644675. Bass, B. M. (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expecta- tions. The Free Press, New York. Bass, B. M. (1990) Bass and Stogills handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications. Free Press, New York. Bass, B. M. (1998) Transformational leadership: Industrial, mili- tary, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. Bass, B. M. and Avolio, B. J. (1994) Shatter the glass ceiling: Women may make better managers. Human Resource Management 33(4), 549560. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. L. and Berson, Y. (2003) Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 207218. Bass, B. M. and Steidlmeier, P. (1999) Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 181238. Bennet, R. and Savani, S. (2004) Managing conict between marketing and other functions within charitable organizations. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 25(2), 180200. Bliese, P. D. (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extension, and new directions, (eds) K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski, pp. 467511. Joessey-Bass, San Francisco. Bodtker, A. M. and Jameson, J. K. (2001) Emotion in conict formation and its transformation: Application to organizational conict management. The International Journal of Conict Management 12, 259275. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L. and Bernston, G. G. (1997) Beyond bipolar conceptualisations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluation space. Personality and Social Psychology Reviews 1, 325. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J. and Higgs, A. C. (1993) Relations between workgroup characteristics and effectiveness: Implica- tions for designing effective workgroups. Personnel Psychology 46(4), 823850. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. S. R. and Miller, S. R. (2001) Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders charisma on observers affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31, 21492159. Cohen, S. G. and Bailey, D. E. (1997) What makes team works: Group effectiveness research from the shop oor to the executive suite. Journal of Management 32(3), 239291. Crandall, J. E. (1975) Negativity bias in evaluative rating. Journal of Social Psychology 95, 109116. DeChurch, L. A. and Marks, M. A. (2001) Maximizing the benets of task conict: The role of conict management. International Journal of Conict Management 12, 422. De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002) How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology 8(5), 858866. De Dreu, C. K. W. and Weingart, L. R. (2003) Task versus relationship conict, team performance and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4), 741749. De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F. and Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999) Conict and performance in groups and organisations. In International review of industrial and organizational psychol- ogy, (eds) C. L. Cooper and I. T. Robertson, pp. 376405. Wiley, Chichester. De Souza, G. and Klein, H. J. (1995) Emergent leadership in the group goal-setting process. Small group research 26, 475 496. Deutsch, M. (1993a) Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist 48, 510617. Deutsch, M. (1993b) Conict resolution and cooperative learning in an alternative high school. Cooperative Learning 13(4), 15. 232 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Phillips, J. L., Dunford, B. B. and Melner, S. B. (1999) Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness. Small Group Research 30, 678711. Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E. and Spangler, W. D. (2004) Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management 17(2), 177193. Dirks, K. T. (2000) Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. Journal of Applied Psychology 85, 10041012. Doty, D. H. and Glick, W. H. (1998) Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods 1(4), 374406. Druskat, V. U. and Wolff, S. B. (2001) Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review 79(3), 8190. Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D. and Stark, E. M. (2000) Performance and satisfaction in conicted interdependent groups: When and how does self-esteem make a difference? Academy of Management Journal 43, 772782. Dunphy, D. and Bryant, B. (1996) Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance. Human Relations 49, 677699. Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S. and Skogstad, A. (2007) Destructive leadership behaviour: A denition and a conceptual model. Leadership Quarterly 18, 207216. Einarsen, S. (1999) The nature and causes of bullying at work. International Journal of Manpower 20(12), 1627. Einarsen, S. (2000) Bullying and harassment at work: Unveiling an organizational taboo. In Proceedings of transcending boundaries conference, (eds) M. Sheehan, S. Ramsay and J. Patrick. Grifth University Press, Brisbane. Felstiner, W. L. F., Abel, R. L. and Sarat, A. (1981) The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. Law and Society Review 15(3), 631654. Finney, J. W., Mitchell, R. C., Cronkite, R. C. and Moos, R. H. (1984) Methodological issues in estimating main and interactive effects: Examples from coping/social support and stress eld. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 19, 2324. Fu, P. P. and Yukl, G. (2000) Perceived effectiveness of inuence tactics in the United States and China. Leadership Quarterly 11(2), 251266. George, J. M. (2000) Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations 53, 10271055. Gladstein, D. L. (1984) Groups in Context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(4), 499517. Hackman, J. R. (1987) The designs of work teams. In Handbook of organizational behavior ed. J. W. Lorsch, pp. 315342. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. (2005) When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior 26, 3774. Hackman, J. R. and Oldham, G. R. (1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250279. Hater, J. J. and Bass, B. M. (1988) Superiors evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 695702. Hateld, E., Cacioppo, J. and Raspson, R. (1994) Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press, New York. Horwitz, S. K. and Horwitz, I. B. (2007) The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management 33(6), 9871015. Humphrey, R. H. (2002) The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly 13(5), 493504. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005) Teams in organisations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology 518, 543. Jackson, J. E. and Joshi, A. (2004) Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(6), 675703. James, L. R. (1982) Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology 67, 219229. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992) Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. The Free Press, New York. Jehn, K. A. (1994) Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup con- ict. International Journal of Conict Management 4, 223 238. Jehn, K. A. (1997) Qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 538566. Jehn, K. A. and Chatman, J. A. (2000) The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conict Management 11(1), 5673. Jehn, K. A. (1995) A multimethod examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup conict. Administrative Science Quar- terly 40(2), 256284. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B. and Neale, M. A. (1999) Why differences make a difference. A study of diversity, conict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 741764. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J. and Hooper, G. S. (2002) Workgroup emotional intelligence. Scale development and relationship to team process effectiveness and goal focus. Human Resource Management Review 12, 195214. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., and Avolio, B. J. (2000) Effects of leadership styles, anonymity and rewards in an electrical meeting system environment, Working paper, Centre for Lead- ership Studies, Binghamon University. Kang, H., Yang, H. and Rowley, C. (2006) Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of soft- ware development team members. Human Relations 59(12), 16811710. Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. (2005) The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review 83(7), 162171. Keller, R. T. (1992) Transformational leadership and performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Man- agement 18(3), 489501. Kirkman, B. L. and Shapiro, D. L. (1997) The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review 22, 730757. Kotlyar, I. and Karakowsky, L. (2006) Leading conict? Linkages between leader behaviours and group conict. Small Group Research 37, 377403. Kotlyar, I. and Karakowsky, L. (2007) Falling over ourselves to follow the leader: Conceptualizing connections between trans- formational leader behaviors and dysfunctional team conict. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 14, 3849. Lewin, K. (1943) Psychological ecology. In Field theory in social science ed. D. Cartwright. Social Science Paperbacks, London. Lord, R. C., Brown, D. J. and Freiberg, S. J. (1999) Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 78(3), 167203. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L. and Weingart, L. R. (2001) Maximizing cross-functional new product teams innovativeness and con- straint adherence. A conict communication perspective. Acad- emy of Management Journal 44, 779793. Malasch, C. (1979) Negative emotional biasing of unexplained arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 953969. Mannix, E. and Neale, M. A. (2005) What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organi- zations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 6(2), 3155. Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 233 McColl-Kennedy, J. R. and Anderson, R. D. (2002) Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly 13, 545559. McKenna, S. and Richardson, J. (1995) Business values, manage- ment and conict handling: Issues in contemporary Singapore. Journal of Management Development 14(4), 5670. Naquin, C. E. and Tynan, R. O. (2003) The team halo effect: Why teams are not blamed for their failures. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 332340. Orlitzky, M. and Benjamin, J. D. (2003) The effects of sex composition on small-group performance in a business school case competition. Academy of Management Learning and Edu- cation (AMLE) 2(2), 128138. Pelled, L. H. (1996) Demographic diversity, conict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science 6, 615631. Pescosolido, A. T. (2002) Emergent leaders as managers of group emotions. The Leadership Quarterly 13(5), 583599. Pirola-Merlo, A., Ha rtel, C. E. J., Mann, L. and Hirst, G. (2002) How leaders inuence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R and D teams. Leadership Quarterly 13, 561581. Pirola-Merlo, A. and Mann, L. (2004) The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior 25(2), 235257. Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P. and Buckley, M. R. (2003) Emotional intelligence, leadership effectiveness and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 11(1), 2140. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y. and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879903. Pondy, R. L. (1967) Organizational conict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly 12(2), 296320. Rafferty, A. E. and Grifn, M. A. (2004) Dimensions of transforma- tional leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly 15, 329354. Rahim, M. A. (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conict. Academy of Management Journal 26, 368376. Rayner, M. (1999) Workplace bullying: Do something! Journal of Occupational Health and Safety Australian and New Zealand 14(6), 581585. Rentsch, J. R., Heffner, T. S. and Duffy, L. T. (1994) What you know is what you get from experience: Team experience related to teamwork schemas. Group and organizational Management 19(4), 450475. Robinson, S. L. and OLeary-Kelly, A. M. (1998) Monkey see monkey do: The inuence of workgroups on antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Management Journal 41, 658672. Salas, E., Bowers, C. A. andCannon-Bowers, J. A. (1995) Military team research: 10 years of progress. Military Psychology 7, 5575. Sheehan, M. (1999) Workplace bullying: Responding with some emotional intelligence. International Journal of Manpower 20(1/2), 5057. Sheppard, B. H., Lewicki, R. J. and Minton, J. W. (1992) Organi- zational justice: The search for fairness in the workplace. Lexington Books, New York. Simons, T. L. and Peterson, R. S. (2000) Task conict and relation- ship conict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(1), 102111. Sitkin, S. B. and Bies, R. J. (1993) Social accounts in conict situations: Using explanations to manage conict. Human Relations 46, 349370. Skjorshammer, M. (2001) Conict management in a hospital: Designing processing and invention methods. Journal of Man- agement in Medicine 15(2), 156166. Smith, K., Smith, K., Olian, J., Sim, H., OBanno, D. and Scully, J. (1994) Top management team demography and process: The role of social integration and communication. Administrative Science Quarterly 39, 412438. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J. and Kahai, S. S. (1997) Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effective- ness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology 82, 89103. Speisman, J. C., Lazarus, R. S., Mordkoff, A. M. and Davison, L. A. (1964) The experimental reduction of stress based on ego- defense theory. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology 68, 367380. Stewart, G. L. and Manz, C. C. (1995) Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations 48, 747770. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. (1996) Using multivariate statistics. (3rd ed.). Harper Collins, New York. Thomas, K. W. and Schmidt, W. H. (1976) A survey of managerial interests with respect to conict. Academy of Management Journal 19, 315318. Tjosvold, D. (1991) The conictpositive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Tjosvold, D. (1998) Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conict: Accomplishments and challenge. Applied Psychology: An International Review 47(3), 285342. Tjosvold, D., Dann, V. and Wong, C. L. (1992) Managing conict between departments to serve customers. Human Relations 45, 10351054. Tjosvold, D., Huang, Y. X., Johnson, D. W., and Johnson, R. T. (2006) Is the way you resolve conicts related to your psycho- logical health? An empirical investigation. Paper, submitted for publication, University of Minnesota. Van Dierendonck, D., Le Blanc, P. M. and Van Breukelen, W. (2002) Supervisory behaviour, reciprocity and subordinate absentee- ism. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 23(2), 8492. Van der Vegt, G. and Van de Vliert, E. (2002) Intragroup interdep- ency and effectiveness: A review of and proposed direction for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17(12), 5068. Weiner, B. (1986) Attribution, emotion and action. In The handbook of motivation and cognition, 2, foundations of social behaviour, (eds) R. M. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins, pp. 281312. Guilford Press, New York. West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A. and Haward, B. (2003) Leadership clarity and team innovation in health care. The Leadership Quarterly 14, 393410. Yukl, G. (1999a) An evaluation of the conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 10(2), 285305. Yukl, G. (1999b) An evaluative essay on the current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organiza- tional Psychology 8(1), 3348. Zapf, D. (1999) Organizational workgroup related and personal causes of mobbing/bullying at work, International. 234 O.B. Ayoko, V.J. Callan OLUREMI B. AYOKO is a Lecturer in the University of Queensland Business School. Oluremi (Remi) teaches conict manage- ment, leading and managing people, human resource management and business research methods. Her research interests include conict, emotions, leadership and work- place diversity. She has published in jour- nals such as Applied Psychology: An International Review, International Journal of Conict Management, International Journal of Organizational Analysis and Small Group Research. Email: r.ayoko@business. uq.edu.au. VICTOR J CALLAN is Professor of Manage- ment and Organisation and Communication Cluster Leader in the University of Queens- land Business School and an elected Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in Aus- tralia. He has published widely in the elds of organizational change, leadership and communication, with recent papers in the Journal of Management, Journal of Voca- tional Behaviour and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. His current research projects are examining teams, identity and creativity with scientic professionals. E-mail: v.callan@business.uq.edu.au. Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social outcomes 235
Study of leader member relationship and emotional intelligence in relation to change in preparedness among middle management personnel in the automobile sector
Importance of Self-Efficacy of Working in Team Environment in Determining Individual Satisfaction and Performance: Does It Depend On The Team Performance?