Recently, there has been growing interest in more fully examining
the situational conditions under which the positive effects of
charismatic or transformational leadership are actually achieved. The
positive impact of transformational leadership on follower performance
has received wide support in the literature. However, much less is known
about the impact of transformational leadership on team performance.
Although a number of authors have attempted to connect transformational
leadership with higher levels of team performance, there has been little
effort to delineate the relationship between transformational leadership
and teamwork processes or skill sets. This article offers a conceptual
examination of the potential link between transformational leadership
behavior and the generation of dysfunctional team conflict. Although
traditionally praised as a powerful and superior form of leadership
style, we suggest that transformational leaders have the potential to
unwittingly ignite disproportionately high levels of affective team
conflict.
Keywords: transformational leader; conflict; team; cognitive
conflict; affective conflict; team leadership
**********
Leadership behavior can be instrumental for successful team and
organizational functioning and performance (Avolio, Bass, & Jung,
1999; Bass, 1998; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Mulvey, Veiga, &
Elsass, 1996; Wageman, 1997). With regard to facilitating such success,
the literature has traditionally characterized charismatic or
transformational leadership (cf. Feinberg, Ostroff, & Burke, 2005)
as a superior style of leadership across situations. From its early
conceptualization to more recent accounts, references to
transformational leadership consistently attribute such leaders with the
capacity to have an extraordinary impact on followers (House &
Baetz, 1979; Weber, 1947). In addition, the research has offered ample
support for the view that charismatic or transformational leaders
typically achieve higher levels of individual performance than do those
with other styles of leadership (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002).
Whereas the positive impact of transformational leadership on
follower performance has received wide support in the literature (Howell
& Avolio, 1993), much less is known about the impact of
transformational leadership on performance in a work team context (Bass,
Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, &
Spangler, 2004). Moreover, there has been little effort to delineate the
relationship between transformational leadership and teamwork processes
or skill sets (Dionne et al., 2004). The issue of team leadership is
particularly salient given the increasing emphasis on decision-making
teams in organizations.
Employees throughout organizations are commonly given the
opportunity to participate in the decision-making process anywhere from
problem definition to implementation. Good team decisions are
characterized by a high degree of quality and commitment. Previous
research indicates that teams that make good decisions are those that
manage conflict well (Amason, 1996). Team leaders are in the best
position to manage conflict and, therefore, to improve the performance
of decision-making teams (Amason, Thompson, Hochwarter, & Harrison,
1995). For example, a team leader can attempt to stimulate disagreement
to generate constructive, cognitive conflict (Schwenk & Cosier,
1993). This may involve not only informing the team members of the
structured conflict methodology but also motivating them to engage in
dialectical interaction. The greater the motivation for making a good
decision, the more likely team members are to clarify objectives and to
seek and critically evaluate alternatives (e.g., Abelson & Levi,
1985). It is also important for team leaders to help members minimize
the likelihood of cognitive conflict degenerating into dysfunctional,
affective conflict--team members eventually focusing more on the person
than the problem (Janssen, Van De Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999).
Does the strength of transformational leadership translate well
into the realm of conflict generation in teams? In this article, we
explore the process through which elements of transformational leader
behavior can affect conflict generation in decision-making teams. We
assert that whereas some elements of transformational leadership
behavior can demonstrate a great capacity for motivating team members to
constructively debate ideas, other elements of this behavior can ignite
dysfunctional conflict. To build our arguments, we first review the
notion of conflict in teams and the sources for cognitive and affective
conflict. Following that discussion, we consider the role of
transformational leader behaviors in triggering cognitive and affective
conflict. Overall, our examination is intended to offer a more critical
view of transformational leadership and its utility in team
decision-making contexts. This view departs from the view perpetuated by
the extant leadership literature, which has largely treated
transformational leadership as superior to all other forms of leadership
style.
Conflict in Decision-Making Teams
Conflict plays a central role in the team decision-making process.
Conflict refers to an interactive process manifested in incompatibility,
disagreement, or dissonance between two or more interacting individuals
(Rahim, 1992). Conflict research commonly recognizes a conceptual
distinction between two types of conflict: (a) conflict focused on the
substantive issues associated with the team's task, which can
involve differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions (i.e., cognitive
conflict or task conflict) and (b) negative, emotion-driven conflict
focused on interpersonal incompatibilities among the team members (i.e.,
affective or social-emotional conflict) (Janssen et al., 1999; Pelled,
1996).
Cognitive Conflict
Cognitive conflict has been shown to facilitate better decision
making and result in higher quality decisions (Schwenk & Cosier,
1993). Cognitive conflict can help people identify and better understand
the problem and the issues involved (Amason, 1996; Putnam, 1994), can
encourage people to develop new ideas and approaches (R. A. Baron,
1991), and can help people evaluate alternatives better (Schwenk &
Cosier, 1993). The presence of cognitive conflict appears to be
instrumental for diligent and thorough information processing and for
achieving high-quality decisions. For example, research on minority
influence shows that even when a vocal deviate introduces incorrect
solutions or the deviate's ideas are rejected, his or her actions
still tend to result in more in-depth analysis and better quality
decisions (e.g., Nemeth, 1992). Unfortunately, teams can often suffer
from an inability to generate adequate levels of cognitive conflict.
There is ample research to suggest that teams do not necessarily
engage in practices that maximize their performance, such as generating
cognitive conflict (R. S. Baron, Kerr, & Miller, 1992; Eisenhardt
& Zbaracki, 1992). Conflict is typically seen as a threat to
perceptions of team harmony and solidarity and to the attainment of team
goals (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeous, 1997a; Levine &
Thompson, 1998). Consequently, team members have a strong tendency to
conform to what is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be the majority
preference (cf. Pech, 2001), and consequently members frequently avoid
uncertainty and prematurely smooth over conflict (Brodwin &
Bourgeois, 1984). Even when unique information or divergent ideas are
contributed, these are typically not given sufficient consideration by
others (Stasser & Stewart, 1992). For example, in their study,
Eisenhardt et al. (1997) found that members of top management teams
failed to sufficiently debate appropriate courses of action although
such constructive conflict would have been desirable. This dynamic
contributes to teams' ineffectiveness at identifying and using the
specialized information possessed by individuals and at integrating
members' unique insights into the decision (Gigone & Hastie,
1993; Wittenbaum & Stasser, 1996).
Team members avoid conflict in a variety of ways that include
controlling thoughts (i.e., so that disagreeing opinions simply do not
exist) and behaviors (i.e., so that disagreements are not publicly
expressed), using decision rules and norms that reduce manifestations of
overt conflict, and shifting public positions to mutually acceptable
compromise positions (Levine & Thompson, 1998). This is particularly
likely to occur in newly formed teams, where new team members face a
socially ambiguous situation and look to others for guidance as to the
appropriate way of thinking (Arrow & McGrath, 1993), but it can also
happen in established teams, where team members come to value team
cohesion over the quality of task performance (Janis, 1982). The end
result of conflict avoidance is generally the poor use of a team,
leading to a poor decision (Amason et al., 1995) or, worse, a decision
fiasco (Janis, 1982). Consequently, the importance of stimulating
cognitive conflict during the decision-making process must be stressed
(Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeous, 1997b).
Affective Conflict
Whereas cognitive conflict is positively linked to the performance
of decision-making teams, affective conflict has negative implications
for performance. Affective conflict tends to negatively impact affective
outcomes, such as commitment, acceptance, and satisfaction (Jehn, 1994,
1995; Wall & Callister, 1995). The negative effect of affective
conflict on decision commitment is likely to be mediated by team
members' willingness as well as perceptions of their ability to
continue working together to implement the decision (Jehn, Chadwick,
& Thatcher, 1997).
Affective conflict can foster cynicism, distrust, avoidance, and
even hostility among team members, thereby eroding commitment to the
decision as individuals disassociate themselves from the team's
actions or, worse yet, triggering a desire to undermine the team's
efforts (Amason et al., 1995). Similarly, justice research has shown
that perceptions of inconsiderate interpersonal treatment, which are
likely to occur during affective conflict, can lead to dissatisfaction,
unwillingness to maintain a positive relationship, and a lower level of
commitment (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). It is also feasible that
affective conflict's negative impact on commitment is mediated by
team members' perceptions of decision quality (Jehn et al., 1997).
These perceptions may or may not accurately reflect the actual decision
quality. For example, Jehn et al. (1997) found nearly zero correlation
between perceived and objective measures of performance. Inaccurate
perceptions can develop from affective conflict triggering negative
affective reactions to the team interaction, which in turn can
negatively bias team members' perceptions of decision quality (Jehn
et al., 1997).
Affective conflict can negatively affect the actual decision
quality (Amason, 1996; Janssen et al., 1999; Jehn, 1997) by obstructing
open communication; reducing the capacity of team members to perceive,
process, and evaluate new information; and consuming the time and energy
preserved for working on the substantive decision task (Eisenhardt,
1997). Hostility and suspicion can cause team members to reject each
others' arguments and points of view and lower quality outcomes
(Tjosvold, 1998). This dynamic can not only hinder the team's
ability to adequately complete each step in the decision-making process
but can completely corrupt the process by destroying the team's
motivation to carry out certain steps altogether (e.g., evaluation of
alternatives) to avoid conflict. The tendency for conflict to flare up
and to result in dysfunctional outcomes is regarded as a serious problem
by some authors (e.g., Wall & Callister, 1995). Consequently, a
central role of the leader is to inhibit the presence of affective
conflict in addition to stimulating the generation of cognitive
conflict.
The Link Between Cognitive and Affective Conflict
The research has yet to adequately address the link between
cognitive conflict and affective conflict but it is believed that
affective conflict tends to emerge when instances of cognitive conflict
somehow become corrupted (Amason et al., 1995). This corruption can
largely be attributed to perceptions of the conflict and how such
perceptions trigger negative emotions. Specifically, such instances of
corruption seem to stem from (a) perceived personal insult or threat and
(b) frustration with the interaction.
The literature on emotion is consistent with these observations and
is useful in explaining how emotions get aroused. Emotions have been
viewed as internal mental states focused on affect (Clore, Ortony, &
Foss, 1987). Of the four general perspectives on emotion--Darwinian,
Jamesian, cognitive, and social constructivist--the cognitive
perspective is considered to be dominant (Cornelius, 1996). The essence
of cognitive approach is that emotion is a function of judgment about
how the environment affects the individual (Lazarus, 1991). The way
people make appraisals about the meaning of the situation determines
their emotional state (Schachter & Singer, 1962).
Several researchers have suggested that purely cognitive conflict
can turn into affective conflict when cognitive disagreements are
perceived as personal criticism or disrespect (Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt
et al., 1997b). This is particularly likely to occur when task-related
disagreements generate emotionally harsh remarks or comments that can be
viewed as a personal attack (Ross, 1989). Once triggered, affective
conflict feeds on emotion and can create dysfunctional conflict cycles
whereby negative emotions feed back on cognitions to produce cognitive
simplification, reduced trust, and negative construal of each
other's behavior (Thomas, 1992).
The research has also considered how perceptions of frustration in
team discussions can trigger negative emotions. An assessment that an
event frustrates or thwarts one's ability to attain a goal elicits
anger (Lazarus, 1991). Cognitive conflict can readily be misperceived as
causing frustration of task-related goals (Schweiger, Sandberg, &
Ragan, 1986). One team member can become angry at another for
frustrating his or her goals. This can occur when the other team member
puts up a good fight and effectively thwarts one's own efforts.
This can also occur when another team member cannot justify his or her
preferences but continues to maintain a particular position (Brehmer,
1976). Such behavior tends to create frustration, distrust, and
suspicion among team members who hold differing opinions and can lead to
intense emotional conflict (R. A. Baron, 1984). For example, this
scenario is likely to play out when intuitive decision making is used by
some team members, which involves a nearly instantaneous recognition of
complex patterns based on one's experiences (Eisenhardt &
Schoonhoven, 1990). An individual taking a position based on his or her
intuition may not be able to explain the rationale behind the decision,
and the lack of justification may create frustration in others or,
worse, may look like a power play and result in opposition to perceived
coercion or a bullying attempt.
In the context of a decision-making team, anger can develop in a
number of ways. First, people are motivated to maintain a positive image
of themselves (Aronson, 1992) but being involved in a debate of ideas
(i.e., cognitive conflict) can have negative implications for
self-image. Having one's opinions challenged can interfere with the
goal of maintaining a positive self-concept. Consequently, people do not
like to have their opinions strongly challenged by others and tend to
react to any form of disagreement or questioning with frustration and
anger (Ross, 1989; Schwenk, 1990), particularly if the other's
comments can be interpreted as a personal insult (Wall & Callister,
1995). Janis (1982) explicitly warned of the potential dangers of using
structured conflict: "Open criticism can ... lead to damaged
feelings when the members resolutely live up to their role as critical
evaluators and take each other's proposals over the bumps" (p.
263). Likewise, team members defending their positions tend to get
attached to their points of view (Festinger, 1957) and may have
difficulty distinguishing an attack on their position from an attack on
their person. Moreover, a debate can be viewed as a direct comparison of
one's abilities to those of the other team members, and losing at
the debate can be hard on self-image. A threat to self-image is a
powerful source of anger (Lazarus, 1991). In line with this thinking,
Rancer, Kosberg, and Silvestri (1992) found that defensive
self-enhancement is a powerful predictor of verbal aggressiveness.
Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle (1998) asserted that defending oneself
against contentious tactics by reciprocating such behavior appears to be
"a dominant, possibly even instinctual response" (p. 420). In
a conflict cycle, negative emotions and cognitions interact, producing
cognitive simplification. For example, individuals tend not to take into
consideration the likely response of the other person to their
contentious tactics (Walton, Cutcher-Gershenfeld, & McKersie, 1994).
This kind of interaction causes a deterioration in relationships by
replacing feelings of trust and goodwill with suspicion, aggression, and
hostility (Allred, Mallozzi, Matsui, & Raia, 1997).
Once a relationship has acquired sufficient antagonism and
hostility, negative relational attitudes can prompt more contentious
behaviors (Pruitt, 1991) and, potentially, escalation of conflict
(Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Walton et al., 1994). It may be an
overwhelming task for a leader to reign in a team that has become
overwrought with emotions and conflict. Moreover, if the task of the
leader is to generate healthy debate, once affective conflict is
triggered it may be too late to achieve this. The propensity of conflict
escalation does not necessarily decline as team members develop stronger
bonds (Wall & Callister, 1995).
Leader Behaviors and Team Conflict
With regard to team conflict, a team leader can affect the
performance of a decision-making team in two ways: (a) by stimulating
cognitive conflict and (b) by minimizing the instances of cognitive
conflict becoming affective conflict. The perspective that a team leader
can improve performance by managing two aspects of conflict is
consistent with observations in the literature that a team leader's
job involves dealing with problems that are both task related and team
maintenance related (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994). This idea is not
new. For example, Maier (1950) proposed that an effective team
leader's role is (a) to stimulate thought and debate and not allow
the team to settle too early on a particular decision or outcome and (b)
to minimize the level of frustration in the team, which results in
"hostile, childish, and stubborn behavior" (p. 163). Given the
challenges of stimulating cognitive conflict while restraining affective
conflict, it is critically important to identify leader behaviors that
can affect patterns of team conflict--for better or for worse.
The nature of cognitive and affective conflict, as described above,
suggests that team leaders should display behaviors that emphasize
rules, structure, and an environment that provides members with room for
debate but with restrictions for the methods of debate. Leader behaviors
can serve to reduce the freedom to express emotion in inappropriate ways
and thereby reduce the likelihood of an affective-conflict episode. In
addition, given that the interpretation of events can have powerful
effects on the experience of emotion (Speisman, Lazarus, Mordkoff, &
Davison, 1964), a leader's behavior can affect team members'
assessments of cognitive conflict by continuously reminding them that
frustration is a common element of this process and that the intent of
critiquing each other's positions is not to get personal but to
arrive at a high-quality team decision. The team leader can clarify
noncompetitive intentions of other team members (Thomas & Pondy,
1977).
Leaders can also make team members aware that anger tends to lead
to aggression and can encourage them to monitor their emotions and to
control themselves in channeling their angry feelings and impulses into
action (Ury, 1991). The overall aim of such leader behaviors is to
minimize adverse emotional responses to cognitive conflict and thereby
reduce the likelihood that cognitive conflict will develop into
affective conflict.
Second, behavioral manifestations of emotion tend to be curtailed
in situations that do not permit free expression of emotion (Lazarus,
1991). In such situations, people may rely on cognitive coping
strategies such as reinterpreting the meaning of events (Lazarus, 1991).
A team leader can reduce instances of aggression and hostility by
discouraging such behaviors, reprimanding inappropriate, emotionally
driven outbreaks, and clearly specifying the rules of conduct (Brett et
al., 1998). For example, the team leader can remind team members of
their superordinate goal(s) (Eisenhardt, 1999), their common team
membership, and their mutual dependence (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). In
addition, leaders can establish clear rules of conduct which may include
the following: Listen to others' ideas respectfully, without
interrupting or making cynical comments; if a member fails to see the
essence of another's arguments, seek clarification but do not use
judgmental or set-up questions; critique ideas but do not criticize
individuals; challenge others' assumptions but do not challenge
their integrity, intelligence, or motives (Tjosvold, 1993).
Consequently, the team members are likely to perceive little need to
escalate conflict (reciprocate aggression) because the leader's
explicit job is to enforce fair rules of conduct.
We have identified leader behaviors that would effectively reduce
the likelihood of cognitive conflict degenerating into affective
conflict. Table 1 provides a summary of how cognitive conflict transmits
into affective conflict and lists the actions that a leader can take to
reduce this transmission. Based on this assessment, for decision-making
teams, the fundamental relevant leader behaviors involve directiveness
and role clarification (House, 1998; Keller, 1989), provision of rewards
and feedback, and maintenance of positive interaction among team members
(House, 1998). It is interesting that all the suitable leader behaviors
described are those typically associated with what the literature
defines as transactional leader behaviors.
Transactional leadership theories (Wofford & Liska, 1993) are
based on the concept that the role of a leader is to help followers
attain rewards that they perceive as valuable in exchange for their
compliance. The central behaviors indicative of transactional leadership
reflect the application of contingent rewards for attaining designated
performance levels (Bass, 1985). This can require a set of related
leader behaviors that include role clarification, the provision of
feedback, and assurance that team members are coordinating their efforts
toward the performance goals (Wofford & Liska, 1993). As outlined
above, these behaviors are ideally suited to minimizing the transmission
of affective conflict from cognitive conflict.
In their recent empirical study, Kotlyar and Karakowsky (2006)
suggested that different leadership styles (transactional,
transformational, and external leaders) can have very different effects
on the degree and nature of conflict generated in work teams and
consequently may affect the ultimate performance of the team. The
question is, do transformational leadership behaviors trigger equally
beneficial consequences for team conflict management? What, indeed, is
the potential impact of transformational leader behaviors on the level
and types of conflict generated in decision-making teams? This issue is
addressed below.
Transformational Leader Behaviors and Cognitive Conflict
It has been known for some time that transformational leaders
trigger cognitive and affective consequences among followers, including
emotional attachment and motivation arousal (Conger & Kanungo, 1998;
House, 1998). Conceptualizing connections between transformational
leader behavior and team conflict requires a consideration of leadership
behaviors that can trigger conflict. The literature indicates three
fundamental components of transformational leadership behaviors: vision,
vision implementation, and transformational communication style (Groves,
2005; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). That is, among the most central
characteristics of transformational leaders is the ability to
communicate a vision and motivate followers to embrace this vision
(Bass, 1985; Conger, 1991; House, 1977; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). It
is the manner in which the leader's vision is communicated and the
nature of the values the leader instills that can ultimately motivate
team conflict--both constructive and dysfunctional.
The leadership literature often describes transformational leaders
as using a vision to offer a new reality to their followers, which can
impel followers to re-examine their existing social realities and
priorities among their needs (Bass, 1985). A vision, in contrast to a
goal, is a "general transcendent ideal that represents shared
values; it is often ideological in nature and has moral overtones"
(Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996, p. 37). As Bass (1990) asserted, through
a vivid description of a vision, transformational leaders can
"inspire and excite their followers" (p. 21) to engage in a
certain set of activities with pride and enthusiasm (House, 1998). The
emphasis on engaging followers with values and needs, often excluding
the status quo to inspire thinking outside the box, is consistent with
the aim of generating constructive conflict--that is, cognitive conflict
in decision-making teams.
Transformational leaders engage in a range of behaviors to
communicate or promote vision implementation. For example, such leaders
will act as a role model in inspiring followers to implement this vision
(Bass, 1985) and engage in a variety of other behaviors to effect
follower involvement. The job of a transformational leader in a
decision-making team is different from that in other types of teams.
Typically, the ability of a transformational leader to achieve superb
performance is attributed to his or her ability to unify followers
through a common vision and to reduce the divergence of views and the
accompanying conflict (e.g., House, 1998; Howell & Hall-Merenda,
1999). However, a transformational leader can also stimulate a
divergence of views and generate cognitive conflict by creating a sense
of shared values in which dialectical interaction is desirable. This may
cause team members to overcome their need to get along with others and
motivate them to critically evaluate others' ideas and to express
their own points of view.
In sum, behaviors reflective of transformational leadership style
appear to be compatible with the requirements necessary for stimulating
cognitive conflict in a team. The effectiveness of transformational
leaders in facilitating constructive conflict can be summarized in the
following proposition:
Proposition 1: The ability of transformational leaders to instill a
compelling vision in team members that emphasizes constructive conflict
will enhance the team's capacity for generating cognitive team
conflict.
Transformational Leader Behaviors and Affective 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.
Transformational behaviors can generate dysfunctional (affective)
conflict among team members even though the goals of the leader are
foremost in the member's minds. Transformational leadership
behaviors that emphasize esteem needs and self-concept can make team
members more vulnerable to the transmission of affective conflict.
Leaders should be careful about challenging team members at a personal
level or evoking self-concept. Triggering higher order needs in their
followers can overstimulate members and create dysfunctional conflict.
Once triggered, affective conflict can significantly diminish decision
quality and commitment.
Transformational leadership models contend that a good leader is a
dominant leader who acts as the major source of direction and motivation
for the followers. Such advice is given regarding all sorts of teams and
its proponents make no exclusion for decision-making teams (e.g., Bass
& Avolio, 1993). Our critical, conceptual examination is intended to
add to the small but growing body of literature that has attempted to
examine more closely the situational conditions under which
transformational leadership achieves superior performance. It is our
hope that our research propositions will stimulate leadership scholars
to take a closer look at the role and impact of transformational
leadership in team decision-making contexts. There is no doubt that
researchers need to more fully understand how team leaders can help or
hinder their team's performance via the leader's impact on
team conflict.
References
Abelson, R. P., & Levi, A. (1985). Decision making and decision
theory. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Allred, K. G., Mallozzi, J. S., Matsui, E, & Raia, C. P.
(1997). The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70,
175-187.
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and
dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox
for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.
Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison,
A. W. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management
teams. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2), 20-35.
Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory
makes a comeback. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303-311.
Arrow, H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). Membership matters: How
member change and continuity affect small group structure, process and
performance. Small Group Research, 24, 334-361.
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M, & Jung, D. I. (1999). Reexamining
the components of transformational and transactional leadership using
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.
Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and
charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
Baron, R. A. (1984). Reducing organizational conflict: An
incompatible response approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69,
272-279.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism:
Impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive
perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.
Baron, R. S., Kerr, N. L., & Miller, N. (1992). Group process,
group decision, group action. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations.
New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational
leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18,
19-31.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial,
military, and educational impact. Mahwah, N J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational
leadership and organizational culture. Public Administration Quarterly,
17, 112-122.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
Brehmer, B. (1976). Social judgment theory and the analysis of
interpersonal conflict. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 985-1003.
Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking
the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal,
41, 410-424.
Brodwin, D. R., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1984). Five steps to
creative action. In G. Carroll & D. Vogel (Eds.), Strategy and
organization: A West Coast perspective (pp. 167-181). Boston: Pitman.
Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. (1987). The psychological
foundations of the affective lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 751-766.
Conger J. A. (1991). Inspiring others: The language of leadership.
Academy of Management Executive, 5, 31-45.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1998). Charismatic leadership
in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus
relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
Dionne, S., Yammarino, F., Atwater, L., & Spangler, W. (2004).
Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 17, 177-193.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). Strategic decisions and all that jazz.
Business Strategy Review, 8(3), 1-3.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1999). Strategy as strategic decision making.
Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 65-72.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeous, L. J. (1997a).
Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree.
California Management Review, 39(2), 42-62.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeous, L. J. (1997b).
How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, 75,
77-85.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1990). Organizational
growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among
U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978-1988. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 504-529.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision
making. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 17-37.
Feinberg, B., Ostroff, C., & Burke, W. (2005). The role of
within-group agreement in understanding transformational leadership.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 471-489.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston,
IL: Row Peterson