Ayoko & Callan - Teams' Reactions To Conflict and Teams' Task and Social 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
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
(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-
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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-
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.

Ayoko & Callan - Teams' Reactions To Conflict and Teams' Task and Social Outcomes

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ayoko & Callan - Teams' Reactions To Conflict and Teams' Task and Social Outcomes

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Teams reactions to conict and teams task and social

outcomes: The moderating role of transformational

S-ar putea să vă placă și