See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271508627
Mechanisms Linking Transformational Leadership and Team Performance The Mediating Roles of Team....
Article in Group & Organization Management · June 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1059601114522321
CITATIONS READS
75 896
2 authors, including:
National Sun Yat-sen University
71 PUBLICATIONS 2,652 CITATIONS
All content following this page was uploaded by Nai-Wen Chi on 29 January 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Mechanisms Linking
Group & Organization Management 2014, Vol. 39(3) 300–325
© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions:
Transformational sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1059601114522321
Leadership and Team
Performance: The Mediating Roles of Team Goal Orientation and Group Affective Tone
gom.sagepub.com
Nai-Wen Chi1 and Jia-Chi Huang2
Abstract
Extending previous research on transformational leadership (TFL), the present study explores the mechanisms that explain the relationship between TFL and team performance. Drawing on the three-stage model of TFL (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), we theorize that TFL predicts high levels of team performance through shaping team goal orientation and group affective tone. To test the hypotheses, we use data collected from managers and members of 61 research and development teams and use the partial least squares analysis to test hypotheses. The results show that TFL positively predicts positive group affective tone through team learning goal orientation but negatively predicts negative group affective tone via team avoiding goal orientation. Finally, we find that positive group affective tone is positively associated with team performance, whereas negative group affective tone is negatively associated with team performance.
1National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
2National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Nai-Wen Chi, Institute of Human Resource Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70, Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan.
Email: nwchi@mail.nsysu.edu.tw
Keywords
transformational leadership, team goal orientation, group affective tone, team performance
Team leaders play a key role in promoting, developing, and enhancing team effectiveness (Burke et al., 2006). Therefore, it is important for researchers and practitioners to explore the effects of leadership behaviors on team per- formance (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Among the several types of leadership behaviors discussed within the leadership literature, transformational leadership (TFL) has become one of the most popular top- ics (Bass & Avolio, 2000; G. Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011). TFL is a type of leadership behavior in which leaders articulate a shared vision of the future, stimulate followers intellectually and show individual consideration to followers (Bass, 1985). Consistent with the TFL theory, recent meta-anal- yses have documented that TFL is positively associated with team perfor- mance outcomes (Burke et al., 2006; G. Wang et al., 2011). However, researchers have called for more research to examine the processes through which TFL predicts team performance (G. Wang et al., 2011). Clarifying the “black box” of such processes is important because it describes how and why the effect of TFL unfolds within teams (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).
Previous research has mainly applied two distinct theoretical rationales to explain how TFL influences team performance. The first concerns enhancing members’ motivations to achieve team-level goals, such that transformational leaders influence team motivational states—for example, team potency (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007) and team empowerment (Dionne et al., 2004; Jung & Sosik, 2002)—by commu- nicating the importance of team goals and motivating members to achieve these goals. The second mechanism is enhancing members’ positive reactions toward the team—for example, team cohesion (Dionne et al., 2004; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Pillai & Williams, 2004) and team social identification (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003)—which suggests that transformational leaders are able to inspire team members by creating positive attitudes and reactions toward the team.
Although scholars have provided promising evidence that partially clari- fies how TFL predicts team performance, several plausible mechanisms are worthy of further investigations. First, in addition to motivating followers, transformational leaders also align team goals with individual goals (Burns, 1978). Therefore, it is plausible that transformational leaders influence team performance by shaping shared goals within teams (Colbert, Kristof-Brown,
Bradley, & Barrick, 2008). Second, the importance of the emotional compo- nent in the TFL processes has been highlighted within the leadership litera- ture (Bass, 1985; Humphrey, 2002); it is also possible that TFL leads to better team performance by shaping shared affect within teams (Gooty, Connelly, Griffith, & Gupta, 2010; Menges, Walter, Vogel, & Bruch, 2011; Pirola- Merlo, Härtel, Mann, & Hirst, 2002). As transformational leaders set chal- lenging goals for team members, it is also imperative that they motivate members to pursue such goals by instilling positive moods while coping with negative moods within teams (Antonakis & House, 2002; Berson, Shamir, Avolio, & Popper, 2001; Humphrey, 2002). However, to our knowledge, no TFL study has integrated the two mechanisms within one study.
To address the aforementioned research questions, we seek to advance the TFL literature in several ways. First, we used the three-stage model of char- ismatic leadership (Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Connelly, Gaddis, & Helton- Fauth, 2002) to integrate both the shaping of shared goals and affect mechanisms into the TFL-team performance linkage. This model describes how charismatic/transformational leaders motivate team members to achieve team performance goals through three sequential stages: (a) Stage 1: criti- cally evaluating the team situations, (b) Stage 2: formulating positive team goals while inhibiting negative team goals, and (c) Stage 3: instilling positive affect while reducing negative affect within teams when pursuing the team goals. Thus, we believe that the three-stage model can be a useful framework to clarify the mechanisms linking TFL and team performance.
Second, as transformational leaders might motivate team members by stressing the negative aspects of the current situation and the positive aspects of new goals (Conger, 1999), it is plausible that TFL reduces members’ nega- tive behaviors and encourages team members to pursue positive team goals (Dragoni, 2005). Thus, we include both positive and negative aspects of team-level goal orientation (i.e., the aggregate level of team member orienta- tion to pursue certain goals; Porter, 2005) in our framework. Finally, prior research has mainly investigated how TFL predicts team performance through the creation of shared positive moods (Menges et al., 2011; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). However, it is plausible that transformational leaders help team members to cope with shared negative moods while pursuing team goals (Humphrey, 2002; McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2002). Thus, both positive and negative group affective tone (i.e., a team-level aggregate of team mem- bers’ positive or negative moods; George, 1990; Sy, Cote, & Saavedra, 2005) were added into the proposed model. By integrating team goal orientation and group affective tone into the existing TFL literature, we are able to extend the research boundaries pertaining to these areas and highlight their impor- tance within the TFL processes.
Theory and Hypotheses
According to Bass (1985), TFL includes four sets of behaviors: (a) idealized influence: leaders use charismatic behaviors that cause followers to respect and admire them; (b) inspirational motivation: leaders motivate followers by providing them with appealing and inspiring goals; (c) intellectual stimula- tion: leaders encourage followers to pursue innovative thoughts and learn new ways to solve problems; and (d) individual consideration: leaders iden- tify and pay attention to follower needs. In the present study, we argue that TFL leads to better team performance by shaping team shared goals (i.e., team goal orientation) and team shared affect (i.e., group affective tone). These arguments can be explained by Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) three- stage model.
The three-stage model describes three sequential stages through which transformational leaders influence team performance. In Stage 1, transforma- tional leaders critically evaluate the team situations by identifying the short- comings of the status quo and evaluating team members’ abilities, needs, and satisfaction levels (Conger, 1999). These evaluations lead to Stage 2, which is the formulation and articulation of shared goals. In Stage 2, transforma- tional leaders make clear distinctions between the status quo and the newly idealized goals. On one hand, leaders highlight negative aspects of the status quo and articulate the current situations as negative and intolerable, thereby increasing members’ intentions to improve negative situations. On the other hand, leaders highlight positive aspects of the new goals by articulating the goals as attractive and challenging, but attainable (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), thereby increasing members’ motivations to pursue the positive goals (Conger, 1999).
In Stage 3, transformational leaders encourage and motivate team mem- bers to achieve the shared goals by instilling positive affect in teams (e.g., pride, determination, and optimism) and coping with members’ negative affect (e.g., nervousness, frustration, and pessimism) (Humphrey, 2002; X. H. Wang & Howell, 2010). Thus, as positive team goals are shared and nega- tive team goals are inhibited during the goal-pursuing processes, members are more likely to experience high levels of positive affect and low levels of negative affect, leading to better team performance (Connelly et al., 2002). Moreover, leaders often use risk taking and role modeling, as well as demon- strating unconventional expertise, to show how the goals can be achieved (Conger & Kanungo, 1998). These behaviors might influence team perfor- mance as well. Based on the perspective of the three-stage model, we expect that transformational leaders might influence team performance indirectly via enhancing team positive goal orientation and positive group affective
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the present study.
tone, while reducing team negative goal orientation and negative group affec- tive tone. In addition, transformational leaders’ behaviors lead to higher team performance directly. Our conceptual model is presented in Figure 1.
The Mediating Roles of Team Goal Orientation and Group Affective Tone
Based on the three-stage model, we expect that TFL influences team goals, which, in turn, predict team members’ affective states. Several researchers have proposed similar arguments that supports above propositions. For example, Berson et al. (2001) suggested that transformational leaders elicit positive emotions in teams (i.e., positive group affective tone) by setting challenging goals and convincing team members that achieving the goals will be beneficial in the future. In addition, Humphrey (2002) proposed that trans- formational leaders reduce negative emotions in teams (i.e., negative group affective tone) by helping members to cope with the obstacles and frustration in the goal-pursuing processes. As such, it is plausible that TFL is positively related to positive group affect and negatively associated with negative group affect based on shaping different types of team goal orientation.
Team goal orientation refers to the aggregate level of dispositional goal orientation among team members (LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005) that can be “cued” by strong situational factors such as leadership (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). Team goal orientation has three dimensions: (a) team learn- ing goal orientation (TLGO), (b) team avoiding goal orientation (TAGO), and (c) team proving goal orientation (TPGO). TLGO refers to team
members’ shared tendencies to develop competence by acquiring new skills
and learning from experience. TLGO leads members to react positively to new team events, explore new ways to perform the tasks, and help each other when facing challenging situations (LePine, 2005; Porter, 2005). TAGO refers to the aggregate levels of team members’ tendencies to avoid negative competence judgments from others. In high TAGO teams, the collective goal is to avoid mistakes and negative judgments rather than to perform well. When facing challenging team tasks, members in high TAGO teams are more likely to experience negative reactions and tend to engage in self-protective behaviors, such as withdrawing their efforts from the team and hindering task engagement (Mehta, Feild, Armenakis, & Mehta, 2009; Porter, 2005). Finally, TPGO reflects the aggregated levels of team members’ tendencies to demon- strate their performance and gain favorable judgments from others. TPGO leads members to engage in activities that exhibit their individual capabilities and thereby create the perception of competition within teams (Mehta et al., 2009).
Although team goal orientation is conceptualized as a three-dimensional construct, Pieterse, van Knippenberg, and van Ginkel (2011) argued that team goal orientation can be studied without necessarily incorporating all dimensions, as they are independent. Based on Pieterse et al.’s argument, we include only TLGO and TAGO in our theoretical model, because transforma- tional leaders are more likely to encourage the former as a means to over- come the challenging team situations (Sosik, Godshalk, & Yammarino, 2004), while discouraging the latter to avoid inhibiting effective team inter- actions (Mehta et al., 2009). In terms of TPGO, as transformational leaders emphasize collective goals rather than individual goals and inspire followers to transcend their self-interests and act on behalf of collective interests (Chi & Pan, 2012), it is unlikely that TFL will lead to a collective tendency to demonstrate individual performance for gaining favorable judgments from other members. Thus, we exclude TPGO from our proposed model.
In the present study, we expect that TFL will positively predict TLGO for two reasons. First, transformational leaders encourage team members to acquire new skills or improve their current skills to meet job requirements (Sosik et al., 2004). In turn, members perceive the acquisition of knowledge as important to the team and develop collective tendencies to acquire new skills, thereby predicting high levels of TLGO. Second, transformational leaders challenge team members’ thinking processes and promote creative ideas to improve the current conditions (i.e., intellectual stimulation). These behaviors motivate teams to engage in actions such as trying new methods and generating new ways to perform tasks (Bass, 1985; Chi & Pan, 2012), predicting high levels of TLGO.
By contrast, teams with high TLGO continually engage in self-learning and self-improvement in teams (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003). When high LGO teams face problems or difficulties, members enjoy the learning pro- cesses stemming from problem solving and persist in accomplishing chal- lenging tasks, leading them to react positively to new challenges (Porter, 2005). Therefore, teams with high LGO are more likely to have high levels of positive group affect when they are involved in team tasks. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: TLGO positively mediates the positive relationship between TFL and positive group affective tone.
Conger and Kanungo’s (1998) three-stage model also proposes that trans- formational leaders constantly evaluate current environments and critically point out any negative aspects of teams. By identifying negative team condi- tions, transformational leaders can motivate team members to eliminate obstacles and improve the status quo (Connelly et al., 2002), thereby reduc- ing shared negative emotions in teams (Humphrey, 2002). As teams with high TAGO tend to engage in actions such as evading task responsibilities and overemphasizing the avoidance of failure (Mehta et al., 2009), transforma- tional leaders work to inhibit such team tendencies (i.e., TAGO) by display- ing the following behaviors. First, transformational leaders engage in role modeling behaviors and take on greater job responsibilities to influence team members (i.e., idealized influence; Bass, 1985; Chi & Pan, 2012; Conger, 1999). In this way, team members may come to understand that avoiding tasks is inappropriate. Second, by exhibiting inspirational motivation, trans- formational leaders display optimistic attitudes regarding teams’ future suc- cess (Schaubroeck et al., 2007), which inspires team members to devote greater effort and not focus on the possibility of failure (Bass, 1985).
However, teams with high TAGO tend to form passive attitudes toward task completion and engagement (Mehta et al., 2009). Members in high TAGO teams are very sensitive to negative stimuli and feel pessimistic about negative performance information; this characteristic facilitates the self-pro- tective processes that hinder team efforts toward goal achievement (Mehta et al., 2009). Such negative team tendencies also signal that no member wants to take on greater responsibility to attain team performance goals, thereby heightening negative feelings such as nervousness, anxiety, and frustration (Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008). As a result, TAGO should be positively asso- ciated with negative group affective tone. Taken together, although TAGO positively predicts negative group affective tone, we expect that TFL will
lead to low levels of negative group affective tone by negatively predicting TAGO. Thus, the following is proposed:
Hypothesis 2: TAGO negatively mediates the negative relationship between TFL and negative group affective tone.
The Relationship Between Group Affective Tone and Team Performance
As theorized above, TFL differentially predicts positive/negative group affect by facilitating TLGO and inhibiting TAGO. Group affective tone reflects team members’ affective reactions toward current team conditions (George & King, 2007), which also influences team members’ subsequent motivations and behaviors in pursuit of their performance goals (Chi, Chung, & Tsai, 2011; George, 1996).
Based on the information processing function of positive affect, it is theo- rized that positive group affective tone can enhance divergent thinking and facilitate exchanges of ideas (Rhee, 2007) to generate useful solutions and meet team performance goals (George, 1995). Moreover, positive group affective tone can foster members’ helping behaviors to overcome task prob- lems (George & Brief, 1992) as well as make members feel more confident and optimistic about their future performance (Gibson & Earley, 2007). Consistent with our arguments, Chi et al. (2011) also found a positive asso- ciation between positive group affective tone and team performance. Based on the above theoretical arguments and empirical evidence, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Positive group affective tone is positively related to team performance.
In contrast, negative group affective tone is more likely to facilitate inter- personal conflict and reduce team cohesion (Jordan, Lawrence, & Troth, 2006), which are both detrimental in terms of team performance (Mehta et al., 2009). Rhee (2007) also theorized that negative group affective tone inhibits positive social interactions and morale building in teams, which might reduce members’ motivations to pursue higher team performance. Moreover, the results a study by Cole et al. (2008) indicated that negative group affective tone is negatively related to team performance. Based on the above theoretical and empirical arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Negative group affective tone is negatively related to team performance.
Method
To meaningfully test our proposed model, we chose research and develop- ment (R&D) teams as our sample because R&D team members need to set clear project scheduling goals. Therefore, their team goal orientations may influence their interpersonal interactions as well as performance progress. Our sample was composed of 61 R&D teams (team leaders n = 61; members n = 263) from 32 Taiwanese high-technology firms involved in the following industries: information technology related industries (e.g., semiconductors, integrated circuit design, and optoelectronics; n = 15), electronic communi- cations (n = 6), research and development institutes (n = 3), computer sys- tems (n = 2), and others (n = 6). The tasks performed by these teams include basic research (i.e., performing basic research to create broad-based new applications; n = 7), project-based (i.e., performing project-based research that solves particular problems; n = 14), new product development (n = 21), technical service (n = 12), and product improvement (n = 7). To examine whether the task type influences the relationships among the study variables (Keller, 2006), we performed one-way ANOVA. The results showed that all study variables (TFL, TLGO, TAGO, positive and negative group affective tones, and team performance) did not differ across teams with different task types (F values ranged from 0.32-1.07; all ps > .10). Thus, the task type of R&D teams should not influence our findings.
The data collection procedure was as follows. First, we introduced the research purposes to the R&D executive for each firm to obtain their support for data collection. R&D executives from the firms that agreed were invited to randomly choose two to three teams per firm. We sent questionnaires to the assigned contact persons for each firm, who distributed the questionnaires to the chosen team leaders and team members. During the data collection pro- cess, we attempted to reduce the potential for common method variance (CMV) in two ways. First, to avoid issues related to social desirability (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986), we provided a self-addressed, stamped envelope for participants to enclose and mail their completed questionnaires; we also emphasized that all responses would be kept confidential to reduce respon- dents’ evaluation apprehension (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Second, we collected data from multiple sources to reduce the influ- ence of same source bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986): Team members were asked to rate team leaders’ TFL, team goal orientation, and group affective tone, whereas team leaders rated team performance.
In total, 80 team questionnaires (including 80 leader questionnaires and 400 member questionnaires) were mailed out and 61 team questionnaires were returned (including 61 from team leaders and 263 from team members), resulting in a valid response rate of 76%. To ensure the representativeness of members’ opinions regarding the team-level variables, we treated the team data as valid only when more than two thirds of each team’s members and their leader responded to the questionnaires (Huang, 2010).
Team member were predominantly male (64%) and about 82% were between 26 and 35 years old (M = 31.08, SD = 5.19). Most participants (84%) possessed at least an undergraduate degree. Team size and team longevity were 4.57 persons (SD = 2.52) and 7.29 years (SD = 5.06), respectively. Finally, most team leaders were male (89%) and the mean age for team lead- ers was 36.11 years old (SD = 4.86).
Measures
Following Brislin (1980), we translated the original version of the question- naire into Chinese, then asked two bilingual foreign-language experts to translate from Chinese to English. Finally, three organizational-behavior scholars reviewed the translation for appropriateness.
TFL. Bass and Avolio’s (2000) 20-item Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5X) was used to measure team leaders’ TFL behaviors. Team members were asked to evaluate their leaders’ leadership behaviors on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). This scale captures the four dimensions of TFL, including idealized influence (e.g., My leader acts in ways that build my respect for him or her), inspirational motivation (e.g., My leader emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission), intellectual stimulation (e.g., My leader seeks differing perspectives when solving problems), and individualized consideration (e.g., My leader helps followers to develop their strengths).
Past studies have indicated that the correlations among these four dimen- sions are high (Chi & Pan, 2012; Liao & Chuang, 2007). In the present study, we also found a high degree of shared variance among the four dimensions (r = .64-.75; p < .01). Therefore, we followed Colbert et al. (2008) and per- formed a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to determine whether the four dimensions were nested under an overall TFL factor. The results of the second-order CFA indicate that the data fit the model well [Comparative fit index (CFI) = .95, Normed fit index (NFI) = .94, Non- normed fit index (NNFI) = .95, Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .07]. Based on the results of the second-order CFA and other
researchers’ approaches (Chi & Pan, 2012; Colbert et al., 2008), we com- bined the scores of the four dimensions to form an overall TFL score and then tested the within-group agreement on team members’ TFL scores to deter- mine the suitability of aggregation to the team level (see “Data Aggregation” section). Cronbach’s α for this scale was .95.
Team goal orientation. We used VandeWalle’s (1997) nine-item scale to mea- sure team members’ goal orientation, which includes five items to measure TLGO (e.g., I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from; I enjoy challenging and difficult tasks at work where I’ll learn new skills), and four items to evaluate TAGO (e.g., I’m concerned about taking on tasks at work if my performance would reveal that I had low ability; I would avoid taking on a new task if there was a chance that I would appear rather incompetent to others). Responses were made on a 7-point Lik- ert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
In the team goal orientation literature, several scholars have aggregated individual members’ dispositional goal orientation to team level to form the scores of team goal orientation (e.g., Huang, 2010; LePine, 2005; Pieterse et al., 2011; Porter, 2005). Stewart (2003) and Porter (2005) have provided theoretical explanations for such an approach. Individuals in teams function similarly to genes—the latter combine to form the tendencies an individual possesses, while the dispositions of the former within a team form the tenden- cies a team possesses. Thus, it was deemed useful and appropriate to aggre- gate individual members’ dispositional goal orientation into the team level to determine the ways that team tendencies influence team functions. We also followed this approach to form team goal orientation scores. To examine the appropriateness of aggregating data, we examined the within-group agree- ment on TLGO and TAGO (see “Data Aggregation” section).
To demonstrate the distinction between TLGO and TAGO, we conducted a principal-axis factor analysis with Promax rotation. The results revealed two factors, explaining 69% of the total variance explained in the items, with item loadings as expected. Cronbach’s alphas for TLGO and TAGO were .89 and .85, respectively.
Positive and negative group affective tones. To fit with the operationalization of group affective tone used in past studies (Chi, Chung, & Tsai, 2011; George, 1990, 1995; Tsai, Chi, Grandey, & Fung, 2012), we assessed team members’ positive and negative moods using Watson, Clark, & Tellegen’s (1988) Posi- tive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). In addition, we asked team members to evaluate the extent to which each of a list of adjectives described their mood states at team meetings during the past week (e.g., Tsai et al.,
2012); responses were made on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely). We also tested the within-group agreement on team members’ positive and negative moods to determine the suitability of aggregation to the group level (see “Data Aggregation” section). Cronbach’s alphas for the positive and negative moods were .93 and .91, respectively.
Team performance. We used Edmondson’s (1999) five-item scale to measure team performance (e.g., The quality of work provided by this team is improv- ing over time; Critical errors occur frequently in this team [reverse scored]). Team managers were asked to rate team performance on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha for the team performance scale was .86.
Control Variables
As larger teams may be able to obtain greater resources, making them more effective and thereby influencing team interactions (Chi, Huang, & Lin, 2009; George, 1996; Stewart, 2006), we included team size as a con- trol variable (Mteam size = 4.57 persons; SD = 2.52). In addition, team lon- gevity may also influence the ways teams communicate and interact with each other, which might also, in turn, influence group affective tone and team performance (Chi et al., 2011; Stewart, 2006). Thus, we measured team longevity by averaging each member’s response and treating it as another control variable (Mteam longevity = 7.29 years, SD = 5.06) in the sub- sequent analyses.
CFA and Discriminant Validity
As our data are multilevel in nature, we followed Dyer, Hanges, and Hall’s (2005) approach to conduct a series of multilevel CFAs. We first tested the proposed five-factor model at the individual level (i.e., TFL, TLGO, TAGO, positive and negative group affective tones). The CFA results show that the proposed five-factor model fit the data better, χ2(1117) = 3,387.83; CFI = .94, NFI = .90, IFI = .94, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .08, than a one factor model, χ2(1127) = 10,763.26; CFI = .82, NFI = .79, IFI = .82, SRMR = .15,
RMSEA = .18. We also tested a three-factor model, such that all TFL items loaded on the first factor, all team LGO and positive group affective tone items loaded on the second, and all team AGO and negative group affective tone items loaded on the final one. This approach also produced a worse fit- ting model than the proposed model, χ2(1124) = 5,109.42; Δχ2(7) = 1,712.59, p < .01; CFI = .89, NFI = .86, IFI = .89, SRMR = .11, RMSEA = .12.
Before aggregating the individual responses to the team level, it was nec- essary to ensure that the factor structure was consistent across individual and team levels (Dyer et al., 2005). Thus, we performed a multilevel CFA that included the proposed five factors at both the individual and team levels. The results show that the proposed five-factor model provided an acceptable fit to the data, χ2(2293) = 7,636.06; CFI = .88, NFI = .85, IFI = .88, SRMR = .10,
RMSEA = .12, supporting the multilevel structure of our data. The fit indices of the multilevel CFA are below the ideal levels, which might be due to the small sample size at the team level (n = 61; Dyer et al., 2005). Despite this limitation, the factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .01), suggest- ing acceptable convergent validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). In addi- tion, the results show that the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the correlations among these factors did not include 1.0, which supports the dis- criminant validity of the study variables (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Thus, we proceeded to examine the appropriateness of aggregating individual members’ responses to the team level.
Data Aggregation
To examine the appropriateness of data aggregation pertaining to TFL, TLGO, TAGO, positive and negative group affective tone scores, we calcu- lated the inter-rater agreement (rwg), intra-class correlation coefficient, ICC(1), and reliability of group mean, ICC(2), for these variables (Bliese, 2000; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). The results show that the mean rwg values for TFL, TLGO, TAGO, positive and negative group affective tones were .99, .86, .83, .93, and .95, while median rwg values for TFL, TLGO,
TAGO, positive and negative group affective tones were .99, .91, .89, .95,
and .97. Following LeBreton and Senter’s (2008) suggestion, we also calcu- lated the range of rwg values of these variables using uniform, triangular, and skewed distributions; the results show that rwg values ranged from .70 to .99, suggesting a high level of inter-rater agreement on their responses.
Moreover, the ICC(1) values for TFL, TLGO, TAGO, positive and nega- tive group affective tones were .17, .12, .23, .21, and .12 (F values ranged from 1.52-2.40, all ps < .05), respectively. These values indicate that signifi- cant between-group variance exists for all study variables (Bliese, 2000). Finally, the ICC(2) values were .52 for TFL, .43 for TLGO, .55 for TAGO,
.58 for positive group affective tone, and .40 for negative group affective tone. Although these fell below the conventionally accepted value of .70 (Bliese, 2000), LeBreton and Senter (2008) have suggested that relying solely on ICC(2) values to justify aggregation can lead to erroneous decisions. In addition, Chen and Bliese (2002) proposed that data aggregation should be
supported by high rwg values and a significant between-group variance, that is, ICC(1) values. Based on these suggestions, we decided to aggregate team members’ responses to the team level, as the results showed high rwg values and a significant between-group variance in terms of all study variables.
Data Analysis Strategy
In the group and team literature, Sosik, Kahai, and Piovoso (2009) have sug- gested that the partial least squares (PLS) data analytical technique is a pow- erful means for team research because PLS (a) can test multivariate structural models with a limited sample size, (b) can be applied to develop theory in early stages of research, and (c) can use the bootstrapping technique to deter- mine the 95% CIs of the path coefficients, providing more accurate findings. As we had a relatively small sample size at the team level (n = 61) and a large number of paths to be estimated, we followed Sosik et al.’s (2009) suggestion to use the PLS approach to test our hypotheses. In addition, as PLS does not provide fit indices for evaluating the model fitness, we used LISREL 8.54 for our CFAs and to evaluate the model fitness among several alternative models. After evaluating the model fitness, we used PLS to test the hypotheses.
Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, TFL was positively related to team LGO (r = .52, p < .01), but negatively related to team AGO (r = −40, p < .01). In addition, team LGO was positively related to positive group affective tone (r = .63, p < .01), while team AGO was positively related to negative group affective tone (r = .37, p < .01). Finally, TFL, team LGO, and positive group affective tone had positive associations (r = .58~.68, all ps < .01), while team AGO and negative group affective tone had negative associations (r =
−.56~−.60, all ps < .01) with team performance.
Testing of Alternative Models
Following James, Mulaik, and Brett (2006), we compared the fit indices of the three alternative models to determine the final model for testing our hypotheses. The proposed model was specified based on the hypotheses. Moreover, we expected that TFL would have a direct and positive effect on team performance, even when we controlled for the mediating effects of team shared goals and affect. Thus, we included one direct path from TFL to team performance. It is plausible that transformational leaders shape group affect,
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Inter-Correlations, and Coefficient Alphas.
|
Variables |
Mean |
SD |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 7 8 |
|
1. Team Longevitya |
7.29 |
5.10 |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Team Sizeb |
4.57 |
2.52 |
−.08 |
— |
|
|
|
|
|
3. TLGO |
5.51 |
.46 |
−.06 |
.01 |
.89 |
|
|
|
|
4. TAGO |
3.82 |
.74 |
.14 |
−.06 |
−.51** |
.85 |
|
|
|
5. Transformational |
5.21 |
.46 |
−.05 |
.21 |
.52** |
−.40** |
.95 |
|
|
Leadership 6. PGAT 3.10 |
.50 |
.14 |
.17 .63** |
−.35** |
.51** |
.93 |
||
|
7. NGAT 1.62 |
.36 |
−.13 |
.15 −.48** |
.37** |
−.41** |
−.32** .90 |
||
|
8. Team Performance 5.11 |
.87 |
−.07 |
.27* .65** |
−.56** |
.68** |
.58** −.60** .86 |
||
Note. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are presented in boldface on the diagonal; n = 61. TLGO = team learning goal orientation; TAGO = team avoiding goal orientation; PGAT = positive group affective tone; NGAT = negative group affective tone.
aIn years.
bIn persons.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
which in turn facilitates team goal orientations (George, 1995; Gibson & Earley, 2007). Thus, we tested the first alternative model by specifying posi- tive and negative group affective tones as the first set of mediators and TLGO and TAGO as the second set of mediators. In addition, we also added three direct paths from TFL to TLGO, TAGO, and team performance. It is plausi- ble that the two mechanisms act as parallel mediating processes rather than sequential processes. Thus, we included the second alternative model by specifying positive and negative group affective tones, TLGO, and TAGO as parallel mediators in the TFL-team performance relationship. In addition, we also added one direct path from TFL to team performance. The fit indices of all alternative models are presented in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the pro- posed model fit the data better (CFI = .96, NFI = .95, IFI = .97, SRMR = .06, RMSEA = .12) than the alternative models (Δχ2 = 10.25~10.34, Δdf = 0, all ps < .05). Therefore, we used the proposed model during PLS analyses to test our hypotheses.
Hypotheses Testing
Following Sosik et al.’s (2009) suggestions, we used the PLS approach to esti- mate the path coefficients, corresponding t values for significance testing, and 95% CIs of the proposed model. Specifically, we generated coefficients and CIs using the bootstrapping procedure with 1,000 re-samples, with 61 cases for each sample. The coefficients for each path are presented in Figure 2.
Table 2. Fit Indexes Among Alternative Models.
|
Measurement models |
χ2 |
df |
Δχ2 |
Δdf |
CFI |
NFI |
IFI |
SRMR RMSEA |
|
|
Proposed model |
14.80 |
8 |
— |
— |
.96 |
.95 |
.97 |
.06 |
.12 |
|
Alternative Model 1 |
25.14 |
8 |
10.34 |
0 |
.91 |
.89 |
.92 |
.09 |
.19 |
|
Alternative Model 2 |
25.09 |
8 |
10.25 |
0 |
.90 |
.88 |
.91 |
.10 |
.19 |
Note. The chi-square difference was compared based on the value of the proposed model. (a) Proposed model: the model was specified based on our proposed hypotheses; (b) alternative Model 1: we specified positive and negative group affective tone as the first set of mediators and TLGO and TAGO are the second set of mediators. In addition, we also added three direct paths from TFL to TLGO, TAGO, and team performance; (c) alternative Model 2: we specified positive and negative group affective tone, TLGO, and TAGO as parallel mediators in the TFL-team performance relationship. In addition, we also added one direct path from TFL to team performance. TLGO = team learning goal orientation; TAGO = team avoiding goal orientation; TFL = transformational leadership; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index; NNFI = non-normed fit index; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual. *p < .05.
As shown in Figure 2, the results of PLS analyses indicate that TFL was positively associated with TLGO, β = .52, p < .01; 95% CI = [.34, .70]. In addition, TLGO was also positively related to positive group affective tone, β = .54, p < .01; 95% CI = [.30, .77]. The Sobel test (1982) indicates that the indirect effect of TFL on positive group affective tone via TLGO was signifi- cant (Z = 3.44, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. In terms of Hypothesis 2, the results reveal that TFL was negatively related to TAGO, β
= −.40, p < .01; 95% CI = [−.12, −.68], while TAGO positively predicted
negative group affective tone, β = .26, p < .05; 95% CI = [.04, .48]. Moreover, the Sobel test (1982) shows a significant indirect effect of TFL on negative group affective tone through TAGO (Z = −2.00, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 2 also received support.
Moreover, the PLS results show that positive group affective tone was positively related to team performance, β = .27, p < .01; 95% CI = [.10, .43], while negative group affective tone was negatively associated with team per- formance, β = −.43, p < .01; 95% CI = [−.57, −.29]. Therefore, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were also supported. Finally, after controlling for the effects of team goal orientation and group affective tone, TFL still positively predicted team performance, β = .31, p < .01; 95% CI = [.17, .45].
Additional Analysis
To enhance the validity of our hypothesized model, we performed additional PLS analysis whereby we randomly selected half of members from each team
Figure 2. Path coefficients from PLS analyses.
Note. The path coefficients and corresponding t values for significance testing were generated through the bootstrapping procedure with 1,000 re-sampling with 61 cases for each sample. PLS = partial least squares.
†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
as sources of for TFL, positive and negative group affective tone measures and the other half of team members as sources for TLGO and TAGO. The PLS results showed that our findings were substantially the same, indicating that the same source variance did not adversely or significantly change our findings.
Discussion
Over the last decade, researchers have begun to explore the mechanisms through which transformational leaders influence the performance of teams (G. Wang et al., 2011). Using the three-stage model as the backbone, we theo- rized and found that TFL predicts team performance differentially via diverse facets of team goal orientation and group affective tone. The present findings contribute to the leadership, goal orientation, and group affect literature in the following ways.
Theoretical Implications for Leadership Research
Although scholars have explored the shared goals and shared affect pro- cesses within the TFL-team performance link, they tested each process separately (Colbert et al., 2008; Gooty et al., 2010; Menges et al., 2011; X. H. Wang & Howell, 2010). In addition, past studies did not investigate how
different types of shared team goals and affect explain the TFL-team per- formance relationship. The current study represents a step forward through the integration of both processes into one study, which provides a more complete picture of how and why TFL is associated with team performance (Whetten, 1989).
In particular, the current study shows that TFL was positively related to positive team goals (i.e., TLGO), which, in turn, positively predicted positive group affect; however, TFL was negatively related to negative goal orienta- tion in teams (i.e., TAGO), which, in turn, was negatively associated with negative group affect. These findings indicate that TFL not only was nega- tively associated with negative group affect by predicting low levels of teams’ negative goal tendencies (e.g., avoiding responsibilities and negative compe- tence judgments from others) but also was positively associated with positive group affect by predicting high levels of teams’ positive goal tendencies (e.g., learning from experience and challenges).
Theoretical Implications for Goal Orientation Research
The present study contributes to the goal orientation literature by highlight- ing the roles of TFL and group affective tone within the nomological network of team goal orientation (Whetten, 1989). Although several scholars have indicated that leadership is one important situational antecedent of team goal orientation (Dragoni, 2005; Mehta et al., 2009), to our knowledge, the pres- ent study is one of the first to explicitly test this proposition. In our findings, TFL was positively related to TLGO, but negatively related to TAGO, sup- porting Dragoni’s (2005) argument that leadership behavior is an important antecedent of team goal orientation.
Moreover, the current study shows that different types of team goal orien- tation are associated with different dimensions of group affective tone. Specifically, TLGO was positively related to positive group affective tone, whereas TAGO was positively related to negative group affective tone. These findings indicate that teams with high LGO enjoy developing new skills and achieving challenging goals, thereby predicting high levels of positive affect in teams (e.g., enjoyment and interest), while high AGO teams are very sensi- tive to negative stimuli and feel pessimistic about difficult tasks, thus predict- ing high levels of negative affective reactions in teams.
Finally, previous studies on team goal orientation have predominantly been conducted within laboratory settings using student samples or con- ducted in individualistic cultures (e.g., LePine, 2005; Mehta et al., 2009; Pieterse et al., 2011). In the present study, we test the effects of team goal orientation using a sample consisting of R&D teams within a collectivistic
culture (i.e., Taiwan). Work teams in organizations face more complex and dynamic tasks than those faced by student teams in laboratory settings. In addition, collectivistic cultures might heighten the impact of team members’ behaviors, as members tend to place a high value on group harmony and soli- darity (Hofstede, 1997). Our findings are similar to previous findings that indicate that the effects of team goal orientation can be generalized to real teams and across different cultures. Future research can further explore whether other types of cultural values (e.g., uncertainty avoidance; Hofstede, 1997) amplify or buffer the effects of different team goal orientation dimen- sions (e.g., TAGO). Taken together, the present study contributes to the goal orientation literature by adding substantive antecedents, consequences, and boundary conditions to the nomological network of team goal orientation (Whetten, 1989).
Theoretical Implications for Group Affect
Over the last decade, researchers have begun to explore how leader behaviors influence group affect (Chi et al., 2011; Humphrey, 2002; Menges et al., 2011; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002). However, past studies have mainly applied the emotional contagion perspective to explain how leader behaviors influ- ence group affective tone (e.g., Chi et al., 2011). The present findings suggest that TFL predicts different group affective tone differentially through TLGO and TAGO, indicating that transformational leaders are able to facilitate posi- tive or reduce negative affective experiences in teams by altering their collec- tive tendencies toward certain goals.
Practical Implications
The findings of the current study offer several practical implications to help managers more effectively manage teams. First, our results suggest that TFL is positively related to learning goal orientation and positive affect in teams, but is negatively associated with avoidance goal orientation and negative affect in teams. As such, team leaders can use TFL behaviors to encourage followers to learn new ways to solve problems as well as create inspiring visions and inhibit negative team actions to better communicate team goals and manage group affective tone.
Second, it will be useful for organizations to increase team leaders’ transformational behaviors through the selection and training practices. For instance, managers with high conscientiousness and extraversion are likely to excel as team leaders because these personality traits tend to be associated with TFL behaviors (Chi et al., 2011; Judge & Bono, 2000).
Therefore, applicants’ conscientiousness and extraversion should be taken into consideration when selecting the team leaders. Moreover, training courses on TFL skills can also be useful; organizations can design training activities such as role playing and scenario simulations related to the TFL style, which can assist in the development of these skills (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996).
Finally, our findings also indicate that positive group affective positively predicts team performance whereas negative group affective tone associates with low levels of team performance. Therefore, organizations should pay attention to the team member selection during the team composition pro- cesses. For example, selecting team members with positive affectivity and extraversion are useful to facilitate positive group affective tone (Chi et al., 2011; George, 1990). In contrast, organizations should not select members with high levels of negative affectivity because team members’ negative affectivity is positively related to negative group affective tone (George, 1990; Tsai et al., 2012).
Research Limitations
There are several limitations of the present study that should be noted. First, although we applied a multiple-source design such that team managers rated team performance, all TFL measures were supplied by the same source (i.e., team member ratings). To address this issue, we followed Podsakoff et al. (2003) and ensured that team members’ responses were kept confidential, which helped reduce potential CMV problems associated with respondents’ evaluation apprehension and social desirability issues. Moreover, the split- sample analysis suggests that the relationships among TFL, team goal orien- tation, and group affective tone were not adversely influenced by the CMV problem.
Second, as the data for all study variables were collected at the same point in time, it is impossible to make causal inferences based on the cross-sec- tional research design. However, because team managers occupy a powerful position that signals appropriate goals and behaviors within teams (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978), it is less reasonable to argue that team goal orientation influences team managers’ TFL behaviors. However, to provide a more rigor- ous test of the proposed model, we encourage future researchers to reexamine our model using a longitudinal research design.
Finally, although we asked team members to indicate how they felt at the team meetings during the past week to ensure that we measured team mem- bers’ mood states rather than affective traits (George, 1990; Tsai et al., 2012), we did not use the same 1-week time frame to measure TFL and team
performance. This approach limits our ability to make causal inferences and needs to be addressed in future research. We encourage future researchers to use the same week-based time frame for all measures or even the daily study design to reexamine our proposed model.
Directions for Future Research
To further extend the current findings, we propose some possible directions for future research. First, although the proposed mechanisms linking TFL and team performance were supported, we did not control for other types of leadership behaviors, such as transactional leadership (Burns, 1978) or abu- sive leadership (Tepper, 2000). Thus, it is possible that abusive or transac- tional leadership positively predicts negative group affective tone through TAGO whereas TFL positively predicts positive group affective tone through TLGO. Future researchers can test and compare the differential mediating processes among the different types of leadership behaviors. Fourth, we did not include other types of situational or organizational fac- tors that might substitute for the effect of TFL, such as rewards outside leader’s control, staff support, or spatial distance between leader and fol- lowers. Future researchers could include these characteristics and examine the unique effects of TFL (Keller, 2006).
Second, the present findings also indicate that TFL had a direct positive association with team performance, even controlling for the mediating effects of team goal orientation and group affective tone. This finding suggests that transformational leaders might be associated with team performance via other unexamined processes. Future researchers can explore whether TFL predicts team performance through the shared cognition mechanism, such as shaping shared mental models (Chi et al., 2011; George, 1996).
Acknowledgment
We thank Wei-Tze Lee for her great assistance in data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This current study was supported by the National Science Council of Taiwan (Grant NSC 99-2410-H-004-010-MY3).
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way for- ward. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformational and charis- matic leadership: The road ahead (Vol. 2, pp. 3-34). Amsterdam, Netherlands:
JAI-Elsevier Science.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Philips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in orga- nizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 421-458.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leader- ship training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8, 827-832.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit per- formance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
Berson, Y., Shamir, B., Avolio, B., & Popper, M. (2001). The relationship between vision strength, leadership style and context. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 53-73.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliabil- ity: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triadis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-culture psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 394-444). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2003). Management team learning orientation and business unit performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 552-560.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288-307.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predict- ing self and collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549-556.
Chi, N. W., Chung, Y. Y., & Tsai, W. C. (2011). How do happy leaders enhance team success? The mediating roles of transformational leadership, group affective tone and team processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1421-1454.
Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2009). A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innova- tion: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group & Organization Management, 34, 698-726.
Chi, N. W., & Pan, S. Y. (2012). A multilevel investigation of missing links between transformational leadership and task performance: The mediating roles of per- ceived person-job fit and person-organization fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 43-56.
Colbert, A. E., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Bradley, B. H., & Barrick, M. R. (2008). CEO transformational leadership: The role of goal importance congruence in top man- agement teams. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 81-96.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunc- tional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945-958.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145-179.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Connelly, S., Gaddis, B., & Helton-Fauth, W. (2002). A closer look at the role of emotions in charismatic and transformational leadership. In F. Yammarino & B.
J. Avolio (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead
(Vol. 2, pp. 255-283). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 177-193.
Dragoni, L. (2005). Understanding the emergence of state goal orientation in organi- zational work groups: The role of leadership and multilevel climate perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1084-1095.
Dyer, N. G., Hanges, P. J., & Hall, R. (2005). Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 149-167. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 107-116.
George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of cus- tomer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 778-794.
George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77-93). Chicester, UK: Wiley.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analy- sis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 310-329.
George, J. M., & King, E. B. (2007). Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams: Functions and dysfunctions of group affective tone. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & C. P. Anderson (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. 10, pp. 97-123). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Gibson, C. B., & Earley, P. C. (2007). Collective cognition in action: Accumulation, interaction, examination and accommodation in the development and operation
of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 32, 438-458.
Gooty, J., Connelly, S., Griffith, J., & Gupta, A. (2010). Leadership, affect, and emo- tions: A state of the science review. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 979-1004.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, England: McGraw-Hill.
Huang, J. C. (2010). Unbundling task conflict and relationship conflict: The moderat- ing role of team goal orientation and conflict management. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21, 334-355.
Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotional leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493-504.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233-244.
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Troth, A. C. (2006). The impact of negative mood on team performance. Journal of Management & Organization, 12, 131-145.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transforma- tional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.
Jung, D. I., & Sosik, J. J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective-efficacy on perceived group performance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246-255.
Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 202-210.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 815-852. LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal
orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153-1167.
Liao, H., & Chuang, A. (2007). Transformational service employees and climate: A multiple, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1006-1019.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997- 2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and emotions on subordinate performance. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 545-559.
Mehta, A., Feild, H., Armenakis, A., & Mehta, N. (2009). Team goal orientation and team performance: The mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management, 35, 1026-1046.
Menges, J. I., Walter, F., Vogel, B., & Bruch, H. (2011). Transformational leader- ship climate: Performance linkages, mechanisms, and boundary conditions at the organizational level. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 893-909.
Pieterse, A. N., van Knippenberg, D., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2011). Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 153-164.
Pillai, R., & Williams, E. A. (2004). Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 144-159.
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561-581.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and rec- ommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 69-82.
Porter, C. O. L. H. (2005). Goal orientation: Effects on backing up behavior, performance, efficacy, and commitment in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 811-818.
Rhee, S. Y. (2007). Group emotions and group outcomes: The role of group member interactions. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neal, & C. P. Anderson (Eds.), Affect and groups, Vol. 10: Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 65-95). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitude and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Cha, S. E. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the relationship between leader behavior and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020-1030.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290- 312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Sosik, J. J., Godshalk, V. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). Transformational leader- ship, learning goal orientation and expectations for career success in mentor- protégé relationships: A multiple levels of analysis perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 241-261.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Piovoso, M. J. (2009). Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research. Group & Organization Management, 5, 5-36.
Stewart, G. L. (2003). Toward an understanding of the multilevel role of person- ality in teams. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 183-204). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32, 29-54.
Sy, T., Cote, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295-305.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 178-190.
Tsai, W. C., Chi, N. W., Grandey, A. A., & Fung, S. C. (2012). Positive group affec- tive tone and team creativity: Negative group affective tone and team trust as boundary conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 638-656.
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orienta- tion instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 995-1015.
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36, 223-270.
Wang, X. H., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transforma- tional leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1134-1144.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490-495.
Author Biographies
Nai-Wen Chi is an assistant professor in the Institute of Human Resource Management at National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan. His primary research is focused on group affect, emotional labor, team composition, and strategic human resource man- agement. His work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, Work & Stress, Group & Organizational Management, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Business and Psychology, and British Journal of Industrial Relations.
Jia-Chi Huang is a professor of organizational behavior and human resource man- agement in the Department of Business Administration at the National Chengchi University, Taiwan. His research interests include team composition, team manage- ment, goal orientation, and strategic human resource management. His work appears in Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and other outlets.
Comments