Falling over ourselves to follow the leader: conceptualizing connections between transformational leader behaviors and dysfunctional team conflict.

To systematically assess the process through which transformational behaviors can impact affective conflict, it is useful to identify the three junctures that connect cognitive conflict to full-blown affective conflict--(a) emotion, (b) behavioral manifestation, and (c) reciprocation--which provide opportunities to minimize the transition of cognitive conflict to affective conflict (Figure 1). This model is based on Thomas's (1992) conflict process model. It is also in line with phase models of conflict escalation, which suggest that as conflict escalates parties shift their focus from substantive issues to the other party (e.g., Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

A team leader can control the likelihood of an issue-focused discussion turning into affective conflict at three junctures. A leader can (a) affect team members' assessment of the situation and emotional response, (b) reduce the instances of behavioral manifestation, and (c) reduce the reciprocation of hostile or aggressive behavior. We suggest that certain elements of behavior commonly associated with transformational leaders are not well-suited to addressing the challenges at these three junctures. The points at which transformational leader behaviors potentially contribute to the degeneration of cognitive conflict into affective conflict are pointed out in Figure 1. We conceptualize the reasons behind these connections below.

Transformational leadership behavior does not only aim to satisfy existing needs but it also introduces an additional motive by triggering higher order needs (e.g., esteem need, which includes factors such as self-respect, achievement, status, and recognition). The focus on higher order needs is important. These needs are generally satisfied internally (i.e., associated with intrinsic rewards) and involve self-concept. The introduction of higher order needs is consequential not only because they function as an additional source of motivation (i.e., a desire to fulfill these needs) but also because intrinsic rewards are more closely connected with good performance than are extrinsic rewards (Pinder, 1998). This is one of the very powerful benefits of a transformational leader. However, this benefit of transformational leadership behavior--maximizing involvement of team members by engaging their self-concepts--can become a double-edged sword. The leader's emphasis on the self-concept can, unwittingly, strengthen the connection between cognitive and affective conflict.

As indicated above, a transformational leader motivates subordinates to engage in cognitive conflict by involving their self-concept (i.e., higher order needs tend to involve ego identity more than lower order needs do). The notion that transformational leaders involve their followers' self-esteem and trigger higher order needs is consistent with the thinking of other researchers. For example, Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993) proposed that leaders largely achieve transformational effects by involving the self-concept of followers. According to House and Shamir (1993),

[Transformational] leaders selectively arouse follower

nonconscious achievement, affiliation, and

power motives (and possibly other motives as well).

These are nonconscious stable motives that have strong

and enduring behavioral consequences. We further

argue that motive arousal results in increased engagement

of self, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation.

Such arousal engages the self-worth component of

motivation and increases motivation on the part of

followers. (p. 91)

Such leadership behaviors can effectively motivate team members to arouse passion and emotion for the positions taken in a decision debate. The task becomes more than simply a decision-making discussion or intellectual debate--it becomes emotion laden. The stronger or more important the goal, the more intense the emotion an individual is likely to experience (Lazarus, 1991) in a number of ways.

When leader behaviors make esteem needs salient, the individual may perceive that his or her ineffectiveness at critiquing another's recommendations has implications not only for attainment of rewards but, more importantly, for self-image. This individual may equate ineffectiveness with inferior ability and, consequently, may respond with anger toward others whose actions may be seen as contributing to his or her ineffectiveness to protect the self from being perceived in a negative light. Likewise, making the need for esteem salient can make team members making the recommendations more personally sensitive to criticism.

Transformational leader behaviors that deeply engage team members' self-concept can cause team members to become more aggressive in critiquing others' ideas, more sensitive to the critiques by others, and more committed to their own positions (and less committed to the team decision). Consequently, under this condition, not only are the team members likely to fight harder for their positions but they are also more likely to interpret criticism of their positions as a form of a personal attack (because their self-concept is involved). Team members are also more likely to interpret any conflict as thwarting or frustrating their task-related goals. Hostility builds and team members can succumb to falling over themselves to generate and defend their own positions--positions to which the leader has inspired them to become emotionally attached. In this scenario, the leader may find that affective conflict has supplanted cognitive conflict.

In sum, the ego-engaging features of certain transformational leader behaviors suggest that such behaviors are less likely to achieve success in addressing the affective conflict--cognitive conflict transmission. Leader behaviors that avoid triggering ego-based defensiveness can be much more adept at managing the connections between cognitive and affective conflict. This calls for an emphasis on transactional related leader behaviors that simply include enforcement of the rules of the game--creating parameters for generating and maintaining cognitive conflict while curtailing the transmission of affective conflict. Charisma in such situations appears to be, at best, unessential and, at worst, a contributor to negative emotions and behavioral manifestations of emotional conflict.

The following proposition sums up the relationship conceptualized between transformational behavior and affective conflict:

Proposition 2: The tendency for transformational leaders to engage team members' egos and emotions will increase team vulnerability to the transmission of affective conflict from cognitive conflict.

Summary

Although the use of dialectical interaction among team members can help to improve decision quality, it can also trigger interpersonal tensions, animosity, annoyance, and even hostility within a team (Jehn, 1995). Being engaged in cognitive conflict seems to inadvertently produce affective conflict by causing frustration with the dialectical nature of the interaction or the misinterpretation of the disagreement over viewpoints as a personal insult or a threat (Eisenhardt et al., 1997b). Thus, it is important for team leaders in decision-making teams to help team members minimize the likelihood of cognitive conflict becoming affective conflict. In the words of Eisenhardt et al. (1997b), "The challenge is to keep constructive conflict over issues from degenerating into dysfunctional interpersonal conflict, to encourage managers to argue without destroying their ability to work as a team" (p. 78).

Transformational leader behaviors can be more effective at stimulating dialectical interaction than other more transactional forms of leadership behavior. The transformational leader can add value to decision-making teams in terms of generating cognitive conflict. The critical question then becomes, what are the implications of such leadership behaviors for managing affective team conflict?

In our discussions above, we have raised doubts regarding the capacity of transformational leader behaviors to facilitate the generation of cognitive conflict while minimizing the transmission of affective conflict. Specifically, our article, given its consideration of the emotional impact of transformational behaviors, questions the superiority of transformational leaders in situations where constructive team conflict is required. According to Eisenhardt (1999), in fast-paced environments, effective decision-making teams are able to "cut off debate at the appropriate moment" (p. 69). However, a transformational leader may experience particular difficulty in this regard. As a consequence of motive arousal, team members' feelings of self-worth may become contingent on advancing their own ideas and defeating those of other team members, and they may spend more time in discussion. Thus, achieving timely consensus can prove problematic. In addition, the inability to constrain affective conflict can result in a deterioration of the team's ability to generate high-quality decision performance.