small group research 2006 kotlyar 377 403

7/16/2019 Small Group Research 2006 Kotlyar 377 403

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/small-group-research-2006-kotlyar-377-403 1/28

http://sgr.sagepub.com/ Small Group Research

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1046496406291388

2006 37: 377Small Group Research Igor Kotlyar and Leonard Karakowsky

ConflictLeading Conflict? Linkages Between Leader Behaviors and Group

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Small Group Research Additional services and information for

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jul 17, 2006Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on May 2, 2013sgr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://sgr.sagepub.com/


http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377



http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://sgr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377.refs.html



http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377.full.pdf





http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/37/4/377.full.pdf


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://sgr.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepublications.com/





Leading Conflict?

Linkages Between Leader

Behaviors and Group Conflict

Igor Kotlyar

Leonard KarakowskyYork University, Toronto, Ontario

This article is intended to contribute to the creation of a theoretical frame-

work for more fully assessing the nature of the relationship between leader-

ship styles and group conflict. The authors report the results of a laboratory

study conducted to assess the connection between leadership behaviors and

the levels of cognitive and affective conflict generated in decision-making

groups. The findings support the assertion that differences in leadership

behaviors can trigger different levels of cognitive and affective conflict

among group members. Behaviors reflective of the transformational style of

leadership demonstrated the greatest capacity to motivate group members toconstructively debate ideas. However, in contrast to transactional and exter-

nal leader behaviors, transformational leadership behaviors also showed a

greater capacity for igniting affective conflict among group members.

Keywords: conflict; groups; leadership; decision making

A

central challenge of work groups involves stimulating productive (cog-

nitive) conflict (Amason, 1996) while minimizing the presence of dys-functional (affective) conflict (Jehn, 1995; Whyte, 2000). Group leaders are

in a position to exert a strong influence on the presence of group conflict

(Amason, Thompson, Hochwarter, & Harrison, 1995). The ability to stim-

ulate cognitive conflict (CC), while curtailing the instances of its transmis-

sion to affective conflict (AC), can be the key to gaining the benefits of

conflict without the costs (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). Consequently, a

central question is, Are certain leadership styles more effective than others

at generating CC and inhibiting AC?

Although we know that leadership behavior can be instrumental for

group functioning (e.g., Wageman, 1997), the relative impact of differing

Small Group Research

Volume 37 Number 4

August 2006 377-403

© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/1046496406291388

http://sgr.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

377

Authors’ Note: The authors wish to thank M.G. Evans and the anonymous reviewers for SGR

for their valuable comments on and contributions to this research.








leadership styles (transactional, transformational, and external) in decision-

making groups remains largely untested (Amason, 1996), and the impact of

leadership style on group conflict has been largely ignored. This articleexamines how fundamental differences in leadership styles can result in dif-

ferences in the levels and types of conflict generated in a team context. Via

a laboratory study, we compared behaviors reflective of three fundamen-

tally different leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and exter-

nal behaviors) in terms of their effect on group conflict, with particular

attention paid to CC and AC. Below, we provide the theoretical background

to our research, present our hypotheses, and report the details of our study

along with the results. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findingsand suggest how this study questions the relative superiority of transforma-

tional leader behaviors over transactional and external leader behaviors in

the context of group conflict.

Theoretical Background and Framework

Group Conflict: The CC-AC ConnectionThe literature recognizes a conceptual distinction between two types of

conflict: (a) conflict focused on the substantive issues associated with the

group’s task, which can involve differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opin-

ions (i.e., CC or task conflict) and (b) negative, emotion-driven conflict,

focused on interpersonal incompatibilities among the group members (i.e.,

AC, social-emotional conflict, relationship-focused conflict, people-ori-

ented conflict) (Janssen, Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999). Both types of

conflict have important implications for group behavior and performance.CC is reflected in such group behaviors as debating the merit of the

decision-making objective, using different frames in defining problems, gen-

erating alternatives that are based on opposing assumptions, and scrutinizing

the quality of various alternatives through vigorous debate. This type of con-

flict can help individuals achieve a fuller understanding of the problem

(Amason, 1996), encourage the development of new approaches (Baron,

1991), improve the ability to evaluate alternatives (Schwenk & Cosier, 1993),

and consequently facilitate higher quality decisions (Amason, 1996).Though the presence of CC appears to be instrumental for achieving

high-quality decisions (Amason et al., 1995), conflict is often minimal

within decision-making groups (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeous, 1997a).

378 Small Group Research








Consequently, the need to stimulate CC during the decision-making process

has been emphasized in the literature (Eisenhardt, 1999). Even though tech-

niques for stimulating dialectical interaction are available (e.g., Eisenhardt,Kahwajy, & Bourgeous, 1997b), group members are often hesitant to fully

engage in CC (Mulvey, Veiga, & Elsass, 1996).

Although stimulating CC is clearly an important element of the decision

process, it can inadvertently lead to AC (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Pelled,

Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999) and, thereby, reduce the quality of the decision

process. The use of dialectical interaction among group members to

improve decision quality tends to trigger interpersonal tensions, animosity,

annoyance, and even hostility within a group (e.g., Jehn, 1995). High inter-personal or AC can evoke feelings of stress, preclude the group from using

systematic decision-making procedures (Whyte, 2000), obstruct open com-

munication, reduce the capacity of team members to perceive, process, and

evaluate new information (e.g., Jehn, 1995), and consequently impede the

actual decision quality (Tjosvold, 1993).

Research has yet to adequately address how exactly CC fuels AC; how-

ever, correlation between the two types of conflict has been consistently

reported to be positive (Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Pelled et al., 1999). Itis believed that AC tends to emerge when instances of CC somehow

become “corrupted” (Amason et al., 1995). Being engaged in CC seems to

inadvertently produce AC by causing frustration with the dialectical nature

of the interaction or the misinterpretation of the disagreement over view-

points as a personal insult or a threat (e.g., Eisenhardt et al., 1997b). The

literature suggests three critical connections or junctures between CC and

AC in the group context: (a) emotion-based responses to CC, (b) behavioral

manifestations of negative emotions, and (c) reciprocation of perceived

hostility.

First, consistent with the cognitive-based view of emotions (Lazarus,

1991), several researchers have suggested that CC can turn into AC when

cognitive disagreements are perceived as personal criticism or disrespect

(Amason, 1996). Being involved in a debate of ideas (i.e., CC) can have neg-

ative implications for the self-concept. People are motivated to maintain a

positive self-concept (Aronson, 1992), and, consequently, cognitive dis-

agreements that are perceived as personal criticism may be viewed as a

threat to one’s self-concept. In this situation, individuals will react to suchdisagreement with frustration and anger (Schwenk, 1990), particularly if the

other’s comments can be interpreted as a personal insult (Wall & Callister,

1995). In addition, the generation of negative emotions can also arise from

Kotlyar, Karakowsky / Leading Conflict 379








perceiving CC as causing frustration of task-related goals. This can occur,

for example, when one group member puts up a good fight and effectively

thwarts another’s efforts or when a group member cannot justify his or herpreferences but continues to maintain a particular position (Schweiger,

Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Once triggered, AC can feed back on cognitions

to produce cognitive simplification, reduced trust, and negative construal of

each other’s behavior and intentions (K. W. Thomas, 1992).

A second avenue for CC to rapidly diffuse into AC within a group occurs

as a result of behavioral manifestations of negative emotions. The deterio-

ration of CC into AC can occur when, in response to aroused anger, indi-

vidual group members engage in aggressive behavior, ranging from slightlycynical comments to direct personal attacks (Wall & Callister, 1995).

Subsequently, a third source for the spread of AC in a group occurs when

anger and aggressive behavior are reciprocated (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle,

1998). This can consequently generate even higher levels of AC. Defending

oneself against contentious tactics by reciprocating such behavior appears

to be a dominant, instinctual response (Brett et al., 1998). This kind of

interaction causes a deterioration in relationships by replacing feelings of

goodwill with hostility because it can prompt more contentious behaviors(Pruitt, 1991) and, potentially, escalate the conflict (Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim,

1994). A prolonged conflict can cause a change in goals from maximizing

the group’s performance to personal revenge (Wall & Callister, 1995).

The Impact of Leader Behaviors on Group Conflict

Given the discussion above, it is useful to consider how a leader’s behav-

ior can help prevent the transmission of AC from CC. With respect to min-

imizing AC, a group leader can play a central role by intervening at the

junctures described above. Specifically, a leader can aim to reduce adverse

emotional responses, reduce the instances of behavioral manifestation, and

reduce the reciprocation of hostile or aggressive behavior. For example, a

leader can promote certain rules of conduct and manage expectations of

group members regarding the decision process and consequently can serve

to reduce adverse emotions potentially arising from CC (Tjosvold, 1993).

A central question for this article is: How effective are various leadership

styles at addressing these forms of conflict?In the leadership literature, three styles of leader behavior have been

given particular attention. Transactional leadership theories (Wofford &

Liska, 1993) are based on the concept that the role of a leader is to help fol-

lowers attain rewards that they perceive as valuable in exchange for their









compliance. Transformational leadership theories (Bass, 1985; Burns,

1978) propose that a leader can achieve superior performance by modify-

ing followers’ needs and values. The concept of external leader behaviorscan be found in the literature on self-managed teams (Morgeson, in press;

Wageman, 1997), and it views the role of the leader as primarily to

empower group members to take responsibility for their own actions.

In practice, leaders often exhibit behaviors that could be characterized as

reflecting elements of transformational, transactional, and external leader-

ship (Seltzer & Bass, 1990). However, at the level of theory, it is useful to

distinguish the fundamental differences among these styles in any effort to

delineate their consequences for conflict generation. Below we focus onhow the fundamental differences in these leadership styles can result in dif-

ferences in the levels of CC and AC generated in the group context.

Leadership behaviors and the generation of CC. Transformational,

transactional, and external leader behaviors can differ in their effectiveness

with regard to the stimulation of CC. To understand their relative impact on

CC, it is useful to consider some of the most salient features of each of

these behaviors and the subsequent connection to CC. We first contrasttransactional and transformational leader behaviors below and highlight the

potential for a differential impact on CC.

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 group

members are coordinating their efforts toward the performance goals

(Wofford & Liska, 1993). Based on this approach, for decision-making

groups dealing with unstructured or nonroutine problems, the relevant trans-

actional leader behaviors would involve directiveness and role clarification

(House, 1998; Keller, 1989), provision of rewards and feedback, and main-

tenance of positive interaction among group members (House, 1996, 1998).

Transactional leadership behaviors can facilitate CC in several ways.

First, a group leader will have a direct effect on individuals to engage in

dialectic interaction by setting clear goals, closely guiding the group through

the process (e.g., a group leader can assign roles and explain tasks to group

members), and providing appropriate incentives or praise. Second, the pres-ence of a group leader who sets clear rules, procedures, and expectations

builds a trusting environment in which group members are more willing to

share information and novel ideas (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). The

result will be a high degree of participation in the dialectical interaction.









Although transactional leaders can provide the forum to stimulate CC,

transformational leaders behaviors have the potential to generate higher

levels of CC. Transformational leaders adopt behaviors that emphasize ide-ology, identity, and exemplary behaviors such as displaying personal com-

mitment to the values and goals that the leader promotes. Such leaders

increase the value of efforts and goals by linking them to aspects of the

followers’ self-concepts. According to the self-concept–based motivational

theory of charismatic leadership (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998),

the impact of charismatic leadership arises through engaging followers’

self-concepts in a way that is congruent with the leaders’ articulated

mission. This higher level of member engagement and self-concept has theability to stimulate higher levels of CC compared with levels attained

through purely transactional leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 1a: Behaviors reflective of a transformational leader style are more likely

to stimulate higher levels of group CC than are transactional leader behaviors.

Second, we can consider the contrast between transformational leader

behaviors and external leader behaviors in terms of CC-generating capabil-

ities. Transformational leaders typically employ verbal and symbolic behav-

ior to increase the salience of certain values in the followers’ self-concepts.

Such leaders then communicate the efforts or goals in light of these values

and identities. Through a vivid description of a vision, transformational

leaders can inspire and motivate their followers (Bass, 1990) to engage in a

certain set of activities with pride and enthusiasm (House, 1998). The fol-

lowers’ self-concepts are linked to the leader, the group’s task, and the

group. This has the effect of harnessing the motivational force of self-

esteem, self-worth, and self-enhancement, which make followers’ effortsand goals more meaningful (Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 2000).

Given the above, transformational leadership behaviors are also expected

to be more effective at stimulating CC than external leadership behaviors.

From the perspective of stimulating CC, structured conflict appears to work

in SMTs (self-managing teams), at least to some extent. Most experiments

that examined the effectiveness of structured-conflict techniques (e.g.,

Schweiger et al., 1986) essentially used SMTs, whereby group members

were provided with instructions for conducting their discussions but hadcomplete control over how and to what extent these instructions were fol-

lowed. Although it is possible that members of SMTs may experience less

hesitancy to share their opinions because there is no boss to judge them by

the quality of their ideas (cf. Maier, 1963), it is more likely that without a









leader modeling and stimulating constructive debate, the group members

may lack sufficient drive to engage themselves in higher levels of CC.

Consequently, it can be argued that external leader behaviors will be lesseffective in stimulating CC than transformational leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 1b: Behaviors reflective of a transformational leader style are more

likely to stimulate higher levels of group CC than are external leader behaviors.

Finally, we can compare transactional and external leader behaviors with

regard to their relative impact on CC. The transactional leader’s emphasis

on providing group members with direction and incentives raises a poten-tially stark contrast to the behaviors reflective of external leaders. Consistent

with the arguments above, given the lack of a clearly designated leader,

SMTs do not necessarily provide ample stimulation for generating high levels

of CC. Lacking transactional behaviors, including directing the group

toward debate and offering incentives to engage in such debate, strong feel-

ings of shared responsibility can drive SMTs to seek early consensus and

insufficient CC (Moorhead, Neck, & West, 1998). Therefore, it can be

argued that external leadership behaviors will be less effective at stimulat-

ing CC compared with transactional leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: Behaviors reflective of an external leader style will stimulate lower

levels of group CC compared with behaviors reflective of a transactional leader

style.

Leadership behaviors and the generation of AC. To this point, our asser-

tions support the superiority of transformational behaviors with regard to

their ability to maximize the generation of cognitive or constructive conflictwithin the group. However, although transformational leaders can be more

adept at encouraging CC, they are likely to be relatively less effective at

minimizing AC, particularly in comparison with transactional leader behav-

iors. Although both transactional and transformational leaders have the

same set of tools at their disposal for the purposes of minimizing AC,

behaviors indicative of a transformational leader can potentially lead to

higher levels of AC.

The behaviors of the transactional leader can more directly serve to min-imize the potential presence of AC compared with the behaviors of external

or even transformational leaders. Actions of a group leader that promote

certain rules of conduct and manage expectations of group members

regarding the process can serve to reduce the level of frustration in group









interactions. For example, rules of conduct may include the following:

listen to others’ ideas respectfully, without interrupting or making cynical

comments; if you fail to see the essence of others’ arguments, seek clarifi-cation 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). In this situation,

making group members aware of the source of their arousal (i.e., reducing

the likelihood of misattribution) can reduce the intensity of the emotion

they experience (Schwarz & Clore, 1983). A leader can do this by explain-

ing to the group members that it is normal to experience a sense of frustra-

tion and physical arousal when engaged in a dialectical interaction.The notion that charismatic leadership draws specific attention to fol-

lowers’ self-concepts has important implications for the generation of AC

in the team. To illustrate, consider the following situation. Under a transac-

tional leader, a group member may perceive that his or her ineffectiveness

at critiquing another group member’s ideas can adversely affect his or her

ability to attain certain rewards. In contrast, under a transformational

leader, who makes esteem needs salient, the same individual may perceive

that his or her ineffectiveness at critiquing another’s recommendations hasimplications not only for attainment of rewards but, more importantly, for

self-image. Based on this reasoning, making the need for esteem salient

will encourage participants to become more personally sensitive to criti-

cism. And as identified earlier, a perceived threat to self-image is likely to

trigger AC as the individual attempts to repair a wounded self-image

(Lazarus, 1993). This suggests that group members will be primed for AC

given that their self-esteem is likely to be challenged within the decision-

making process (Lazarus, 1991).

The ability of transformational leaders to make the self-concept salient

can also have the effect of making team members sensitive to criticism that

could be construed as an attack on their competence. Researchers have

observed that AC can occur when group members perceive their compe-

tence as challenged when their ideas are criticized (Tjosvold, 1991). This

dispute of ideas can be misinterpreted as personal disrespect (Pelled et al.,

1999). The salience of the self-concept suggests that group members will

not only fight harder for their positions, but they are also more likely to

interpret criticism of their positions as a form of a personal attack. The finaloutcome is the same—AC is more likely to arise under such conditions.

Given the dysfunctional aspect of emphasizing the self-concept, this

suggests a double-edged sword of transformational leaders in participative

decision-making teams: By involving group members’ self-concept to









engage group members in CC, a transformational leader can cause group

members to become more aggressive in critiquing others’ ideas, more sen-

sitive to the critiques made by others, and consequently more likely toexperience higher levels of AC. In contrast, transactional leader behaviors

do not engage the followers in this way, and consequently such behaviors

carry with them less risk of spawning higher levels of AC among group

members.

Hypothesis 3a: Behaviors reflective of a transactional leader style are more likely to gen-

erate lower levels of group AC compared with transformational leader behaviors.

Having addressed the comparison of transactional versus transforma-

tional behaviors, the following question remains: How do external leader

behaviors fare with regard to the relative transmission of AC? The central

principle behind SMTs is that the teams themselves (rather than managers)

should take responsibility for the choice of performance strategies, assign-

ment of team members to various tasks, solving within-team interpersonal

problems, and the final group product (Neck, Connerley, Zuniga, & Goel,

1999). Consequently, in SMTs, the role of a leader is that of a consultant or

advisor, largely limited to inviting group members to take responsibility for

their actions (Wageman, 1997) and encouraging them to lead themselves

(Manz & Sims, 1987). Although an external leader can provide support and

training to group members if necessary (Wageman, 1997), ongoing inter-

ventions in groups’ activities (e.g., directing behaviors) are considered inef-

fective coaching (Wageman, 1997) and may reduce team effectiveness

(Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, 1999). Consequently, external leaders may

often act as a noninvasive resource for the team instead of becoming

directly involved in the team’s task (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996;Morgeson, in-press).

What is the impact of the external leader style on AC in the group

context? On one hand, facilitated groups should experience lower AC

simply because of their lower propensity to generate CC (compared with

groups led by transformational or transactional leaders). On the other hand,

in those facilitated groups where sufficiently high levels of CC are gener-

ated, AC will likely rise to disproportionately high levels because of the

external leader’s unwillingness to impose concrete procedures on thegroup. The lack of involvement on the part of an external leader can create

uncertainty about procedural direction and, thus, can contribute an additional

source of conflict about the appropriate procedure to be used (Jehn, Chadwick,

& Thatscher, 1997). Conflict about procedures tends to be dysfunctional









(Jehn et al., 1997), and it can be particularly unproductive when perceived

uncertainty exists about procedures for using structured-conflict techniques.

Moreover, once AC is sparked, a self-managed group may not be wellequipped for containing conflict. An external leader does not interfere in a

conflict among group members, even in those situations where CC appears

to degenerate into AC. Consequently, it is likely that transactional type

behaviors will be more effective in restricting levels of AC compared with

external leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 3b: Behaviors reflective of a transactional leader style are more likely to

generate lower levels of group AC compared with external leader behaviors.

Leadership behaviors and the transmission of CC into AC. Given that

CC itself can lead to AC, it is also useful to recognize the relative potential

of transactional, transformational, and external leader behaviors to control

and restrict the potential transmission of CC to AC. As mentioned earlier, a

group leader can impede the presence of AC by exerting influence at any of

the three junctures or links between CC and AC. In this regard, we assert

that transaction behaviors are more likely to reflect behaviors most adept at

combating the CC-AC transmission.

First, a transactional leader can affect group members’ assessment of CC

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 group decision. The aim of the

transactional leader would be to minimize adverse emotional responses to

CC and thereby reduce the likelihood that CC will develop into AC.

Experimental research shows that interpretation or explanation of events

can have powerful effects on the experience of emotion (Speisman,Lazarus, Mordkoff, & Davison, 1964). For example, the group leader can

clarify noncompetitive intentions of other group members (K. W. Thomas

& Pondy, 1977).

Second, a transactional group leader can reduce instances of aggression

and hostility by discouraging such behaviors, by reprimanding inappropri-

ate, emotionally driven outbreaks, and by clearly specifying the rules of

conduct (Brett et al., 1998). In addition, the presence of a transactional

group leader can reduce reciprocation of aggression. For example, thegroup leader can remind group members of their superordinate goal(s)

(Eisenhardt, 1999), their common group membership, and their mutual

dependence on each other (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Given the nature and role

of the transactional leader, group members are likely to perceive little need









to escalate conflict because the leader’s explicit job is to enforce fair rules

of conduct.

Consistent with the findings above, one can argue that the central featuresof transactional behaviors, including the establishment and reinforcement of

explicit conflict-generation goals, strengthen their management of the CC-

AC transmission. Transactional behaviors, compared with transformational

and external behaviors, will likely be more effective at disconnecting the

junctures at which CC can be transmitted into AC. On the other hand, the

ego-engaging features of transformational leader behaviors, and the “leader-

less” aspect of external leader behaviors, suggest that both these styles are

likely to achieve less success in addressing the AC-CC transmission.

Hypothesis 4a: Behaviors reflective of a transactional leader style are more likely to

minimize the transmission of CC to AC in the group compared with transforma-

tional leader behaviors.

Hypothesis 4b: Behaviors reflective of a transactional leader style are more likely to

minimize the transmission of CC to AC in the group compared with external

leader behaviors.

Method

Sample and Design

We tested the hypotheses in a laboratory experiment by manipulating the

three styles of leadership behaviors. We used 208 university students (65%

of the participants were women, 35% were men) from undergraduate busi-

ness programs in two large North American universities. Participants were,

on average, 21.4 years of age (SD = 2.7) and had 1.5 years of work experi-

ence (SD = 2.2). To achieve a reasonable level of statistical power (approx-

imately .80; Borenstein & Cohen, 1988), 69 groups were used in this study

(approximately 23 groups per leadership condition).

Students were randomly assigned to groups, and each group was

assigned a leader (a confederate, blind to the hypotheses). No students had

previously worked together. All leaders were males to avoid potential con-

founds based on gender, given the findings that have indicated that women

behave differently than men in positions of leadership (Eagly & Johnson,1990) and are perceived differently by their followers (Javidan, Bemmels,

Devine, & Dastmalchian, 1995). Most groups were composed of 3 members,

excluding the leader (the exceptions were that one group had 2 members and

two groups had 4 members). Actors playing leaders were trained to behave









in accordance with the three leadership styles (i.e., transactional, transfor-

mational, external). This approach is similar to other experiments, includ-

ing Howell and Frost (1989) and Kirkpatrick and Locke (1996).

Procedure

Each group was assigned a leader (an actor) and a discussion space.

Actors were introduced to the group members as “group leaders” (in the

case of external leaders, actors were introduced as “facilitators”) who were

there to assist the groups in arriving at their decisions. Following the intro-

duction, all groups were guided through a quick exercise designed to famil-iarize group members with each other. The purpose of this part of the

exercise was to better acquaint members with each other by engaging them

in a discussion and to introduce them to the dialectical approach to decision

making.

Introduction of structured-conflict methodology. On meeting his group,

each leader introduced group members to the structured-conflict methodol-

ogy, adapted from Schweiger et al. (1986). The leader verbally explainedthe structured-conflict approach and the tactics for generating CC and min-

imizing AC to group members and clarified all points of uncertainty or mis-

understanding (similar to Amason et al., 1995; Eisenhardt et al., 1997a). He

also distributed handouts outlining the tactics for generating CC and mini-

mizing AC.

The task. Following the introduction, each group leader distributed a

short case (approximately two pages in length) describing a real-life chal-

lenge faced by a company. One of two cases was used in each group. One

case described a strategic issue that involved a competitive threat in the

form of technological advancements. The other case required participants

to decide how to deal with complaints from customers regarding two

employees, which involved personal value judgments and had ethical impli-

cations. No significant differences were found between these two cases

with respect to CC, F (2, 63) = 0.48, ns, with respect to AC, F (2, 63) = 0.74,

ns, or with respect to decision quality, F (2, 63) = 0.59, ns.

All participants received the same instructions: (a) identify the mainproblem(s) in the case, (b) recommend a solution(s) (which should be

stated in terms of actions to be taken; based on Maier, 1963), and (c) logi-

cally present the supporting arguments and explicitly state all assumptions

(based on D. C. Thomas, 1999). Each group was allotted 1 hour and









20 minutes to analyze the case in their groups and to prepare written

recommendations.

In the transactional and the transformational conditions, leaders led theirgroups through the steps outlined in the handout and then allowed their

groups to work independently to arrive at consensus for their recommenda-

tions. In the external leader condition, leaders allowed the groups to decide

on the extent to which group members wanted to follow the recommended

steps. In all conditions, leaders made sure that the group members under-

stood that the leader’s job was to assist the groups in arriving at a high-quality

decision by guiding them through the process and not to provide advice on

the substance of the case. Following the study, participants completed aquestionnaire that assessed their experiences in the group discussion.

Leadership Behavioral Styles

It is important to note that our study did not attempt to fully capture or

model each type of leadership style. Rather, our aim was to examine

whether certain types of behaviors commonly associated with the differing

leadership behaviors could differentially affect CC and AC in the group. As

our independent variable, we attempted to model behaviors central to andreflective of transactional leader behavior, transformational leader behavior,

and external leader behavior. There is evidence that leadership behaviors

can be trained (Maier, 1963), including the behaviors of a transformational

leader (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway, 1996; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).

Six male actors were hired and trained to play the role of group leader (sim-

ilar to Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996)—two actors for

each behavioral leadership style. All leaders were blind to the hypotheses

of the experiment. We trained the actors in the appropriate behaviors andpracticed with them applications of these behaviors. The actors were

required to learn a script for each leadership role, and we assisted the actors

in rehearsing the delivery of their lines. Together with the actors, we mod-

ified the script to ensure that the actors were comfortable with their lines

and that their delivery projected the intended leadership style. As discussed

below (manipulation check), we attempted to ensure that the actors were

playing their roles consistently and accurately for this study.

Prior to the experiment, a pilot study was completed to test and fine-tuneoperationalizations of transactional and transformational behaviors (similar

to Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996). Leaders were told that their job was to help

each of their groups do its best by stimulating critical analysis through

debate and maintaining healthy interpersonal relations (i.e., minimizing









AC). During training, three areas of the leader’s job were emphasized:

motivating group members to win the case competition, guiding group

members through the structured-conflict process, and encouraging individ-ual group members to engage in the debate of ideas.

Transformational leadership behaviors. Actors trained in the transfor-

mational leadership style were taught to exhibit the same behaviors as those

trained in the transactional leadership style, with two exceptions. The first

exception was that instead of repeatedly emphasizing the value of the mon-

etary prize, these leaders appealed to the followers’ higher order needs (i.e.,

achievement and esteem needs; e.g., “I want you to win this case competi-tion so you can brag about it to your friends!”) and attempted to shift the

perspective away from the concern with monetary reward to a grander per-

spective involving implications for self-identity and consideration of one’s

contribution to the group (e.g., “It’s not about money; it’s about pride.”).

Based on Howell and Frost’s (1989) methodology, actors playing the role

of a transformational leader introduced the case to participants by empha-

sizing the value of the individual group members in achieving success. The

second exception was that these actors were taught to demonstrate theirenthusiasm and energy through their dynamic presence (House, 1977).

They achieved this through voice intonation and body movements (Howell

& Frost, 1989). The transformational leaders’ behavior was operationalized

by having the actors alternate between pacing and sitting on the edge of the

desk, leaning toward participants, maintaining direct eye contact when

speaking, varying the rate of speech and loudness of voice, using hand ges-

tures for emphasis when speaking, having a relaxed posture, and displaying

animated facial expressions (Howell & Frost, 1989; Kirkpatrick & Locke,

1996). No significant difference was found between the 2 actors trained in

transformational behaviors with respect to the amount of CC (t = 0.88, ns),

AC (t = 1.16, ns), and perceived leadership (t = 0.17, ns).

Transactional leadership behaviors. Each actor trained in the transac-

tional leadership style was taught to display certain behaviors. To begin, he

clarified the group’s goal (e.g., “You want to generate recommendations of

the highest quality possible and win this competition.”). He also encour-

aged each group to engage in CC by familiarizing group members with thestructured-conflict process, assigning roles to individual group members,

and leading the group through the process (i.e., keeping track of time, pre-

venting any one group member from monopolizing the discussion, etc.).

The leader repeatedly emphasized the value of the monetary reward for the









best case solution and used praise and negative feedback to steer the group

toward debate and away from AC. He also maintained positive interaction

among group members by specifying acceptable and unacceptable rules of conduct, managing expectations, and so on. Finally, the leader communi-

cated to group members high performance expectations and exhibited con-

fidence in their ability to meet these expectations (similar to Kirkpatrick &

Locke, 1996). No significant difference was found between the two actors

trained for this role with respect to the amount of CC (t = 0.55, ns), AC

(t = 0.29, ns), and perceived leadership (t = 1.28, ns).

External leader behaviors. External leaders served primarily an advi-sory role. Each external leader communicated to his group (a) that the

group had the power to decide on the approach to working as a team and to

make its own recommendations and (b) that the role of an external leader

was only that of an advisor. External leaders recommended the structured-

conflict approach but also advised groups that they had the authority to

decide on any process that they felt would be appropriate. External leaders

carefully explained the structured-conflict process and provided groups

with a list of steps. They also warned group members about the dangers of AC, told them how to prevent AC, and provided them with a list of actions

they could take to minimize AC. External leaders also encouraged group

members to praise each other for good performance, to discourage poor

performance, and to set high expectations for themselves (as per Manz &

Sims, 1987). When groups began reading the case, external leaders typi-

cally left the room and let groups work on their own. Periodically, external

leaders returned to their respective rooms to indicate that they had not aban-

doned their groups; however, external leaders tried not to interfere in their

groups’ deliberations. No significant difference was found between the

2 individuals playing the external leader role with respect to CC (t = 1.00,

ns), AC (t = 0.55, ns), and perceived leadership (t = 0.08, ns).

Measures

CC. This variable was measured with a four-item scale, with the end

points anchored by none (1) and a great deal (7). The structure of the ques-

tions was similar to those used by other researchers (Amason, 1996;Amason & Sapienza, 1997; Jehn, 1994), including, “In analyzing this case,

how many differences of opinion over content did your group have to work

through?”; “How much disagreement in terms of ideas/opinions was there

in your group at the beginning of your group discussion?”; “How much









disagreement in terms of ideas/opinions was there in your group at the middle

of your group discussion?”; “In arriving at the final recommendations, how

much disagreement over different ideas/opinions was there?” The four-itemmeasure of CC had a coefficient alpha of .85.

AC. This variable was measured by using a three-item scale (Amason,

1996; Jehn, 1995): “How much anger was there among the group members

during this decision?”; “How much personal tension was there in the group

during this decision?”; “How evident were personality clashes between group

members during this decision?” The coefficient alpha of this scale was .90.

Control variables. Before having participants engage in case analysis,

we assessed their expectations of conflict to be able to statistically control

for it in case expectations of conflict contributed to CC and AC. The coef-

ficient alpha for this three-item scale was .65. On completion of the case

study, participants were asked to indicate their age, sex, and number of dif-

ferent first languages (used as a proxy of ethnical/cultural diversity).

Results

Group Adoption of Structured-Conflict Process

We compared the three leadership conditions in terms of the extent to

which groups followed the steps outlined in the written instructions for gen-

erating CC that were provided to them by their group leader. Analysis of

this one-item, 7-point, Likert-type scale, self-report measure (“In arriving

at your recommendations, did your group follow the steps outlined in theInstructions for generating productive conflict?”), suggests that there is no

significant difference between transactional and transformational condi-

tions (t = 0.71, ns). However, groups working with external leaders indicated

that they followed the instructions to a lesser degree ( M = 5.00, SD = 1.00)

than did those working with leaders who exhibited transactional leadership

behaviors ( M = 5.63, SD = 0.63; t = 2.79, p < .05) or transformational lead-

ership behaviors ( M = 5.80, SD = 0.66; t = 3.45, p < .01).

Aggregation

We collected the data at the individual level and aggregated it to the group

level by taking an average of individual scores. To justify aggregation of the









studied variables, we computed the eta-square statistic for the variables used

in the analysis. Eta-square indicates whether people within the group are

more similar than people in different groups. Eta-square values for perceivedquality, CC, and AC are .36, .54, and .50, respectively. These values exceed

the minimum recommended criterion of .20 (Georgopolous, 1986) and are

consistent with those used in other studies (e.g., Simons & Peterson, 2000).

In addition, r wg = 0.63, which suggests a reasonable level of interrater agree-

ment. Consequently, aggregation to the group level was justifiable.

Covariates

Before proceeding with the analysis, we considered whether the control

variables should have been used as covariates in the analysis. We compared

each of these variables across the experimental conditions and found no

significant difference in terms of expectations of conflict, F (5, 63) = 1.41,

ns, age dissimilarity, F (5, 63) = 1.57, ns, sex dissimilarity, F (5, 63) = 1.85,

ns, and number of languages, F (5, 63) = 0.22, ns. Consequently, we did not

include any covariates in subsequent analysis.

Manipulation Check

As described above, in this study we manipulated three styles of leader-

ship behavior. To help assess face validity of our manipulations, we con-

ducted a pilot study to determine the actors’ ability to stay in character.

From behind a two-way mirror, we observed how the actors led groups of

participants through the process from start to finish. We were satisfied that

the actors adhered to the script and were able to properly exhibit the

assigned leadership behaviors. To check whether the actors continued to

exhibit the appropriate behaviors during the experiment, we conducted ran-

dom spot checks. We periodically observed and listened to groups’ deliber-

ations while trying to make our presence as unobtrusive as possible so as

not to affect the group dynamics. These random checks indicated that the

actors’ behaviors were being portrayed in a manner consistent with their

assigned roles.

In our study, the confirmation of the adoption of the intended leadership

styles was limited to our check of the face validity, as above. Administeringquestionnaires to participants to assess perceptions of leaders has proven

problematic in the past. Numerous researchers who have manipulated lead-

ership behavior using a similar approach have reported that subordinates do

not necessarily perceive the leadership manipulations as different, even









though these manipulations can cause differences in subordinates’ perfor-

mance (e.g., Peterson, 1997). For example, in discussing the impact of a

transformational leader, House and Shamir (1993) argued that “individuals

may or may not even be aware of the specific stimuli that arose, their

motives, or the specific behaviors that are mobilized by such stimuli”

(p. 92). In addition, in our study participants in each leadership condition

were not exposed to the other two styles of leadership and, consequently,

would be incapable of comparing leadership of their group leader with the

other conditions. Under such circumstances, it has been found that partici-

pants tend to simply categorize their group leader and compare that leader

against a mental stereotype (Phillips & Lord, 1982).

Effect of Leadership Style on CCIn Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 2, we predicted a main effect of leadership

styles on the generation of CC. Specifically, Hypothesis 1a indicated that

transformational behaviors would be more effective in stimulating CC than

transactional leader behaviors. Hypothesis 1b indicated that transforma-

tional behaviors would also be more effective in stimulating CC than exter-

nal leader behaviors. In Hypothesis 2, we predicted that transactional

behaviors would be more effective in stimulating CC than would external

leader behaviors. Table 1 presents means and standard deviations of CC forthe three conditions of leadership behavior.

We used ANOVA to test these hypotheses. The results indicate that leader-

ship has a significant effect on CC, F (2, 66) = 7.00, p < .01. The data offer sup-

port of the Hypotheses 1a and 1b. The amount of CC generated by


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of Cognitive Conflict

by Leadership Style

t

M SD n 1 2

1. Transactional 3.26 0.80 24

2. Transformational 3.97 0.80 23 3.03*

3. External 3.15 0.80 22 0.46* 3.41**

Note: Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.

* p < .05. ** p < .01.








transformational behaviors is significantly higher than that generated by

transactional behaviors (t = 3.03, p < .05) and external leader behaviors

(t = 3.41, p < .01). That is, the results confirm the assertion that transfor-mational leader behavior will be more effective in generating CC compared

with the other two leadership styles. However, there is no support for

the Hypothesis 2. CC generated by transactional leadership behaviors is

not significantly different from that generated by external leader behaviors

(t = 0.46, ns).

Effect of Leadership Style on AC

In Hypothesis 3a, we predicted that transactional leadership behaviors

would be associated with lower levels of AC compared with transforma-

tional leader behaviors. Hypothesis 3b predicted that transactional leader-

ship behaviors would be associated with lower levels of AC compared with

external leader behaviors, irrespective of CC. We used ANOVA to test this

hypothesis, without CC as a covariate, F (2, 66) = 13.54, p < .01. The

results, shown in Table 2, support Hypothesis 3a but do not support

Hypothesis 3b. That is, transactional behaviors are associated with lowerlevels of AC as compared with transformational behaviors (t = 5.14, p <

.01) but are not statistically different as compared with external leader

behaviors (t = 1.73, ns).

In Hypotheses 4a and 4b, we predicted that the effect of CC on AC

would be lower for groups with a transactional leader compared with

groups whose leader exhibits either transformational (Hypothesis 4a) or

external leader behaviors (Hypothesis 4b), respectively. Stated differently,

we predicted that among the three leadership styles, transactional behaviors

would be most effective at controlling the CC to AC transmission. To inves-

tigate this, we used ANOVA, F (2, 65) = 7.89, p < .01. We controlled for CC

because the relationship between CC and AC is relatively strong (r = .53,

p < .01) and so is the relationship between leadership and CC. We present

means and standard deviations of AC for the three conditions of leadership

behavior in Table 3.

Controlling for CC, the results indicate that transformational leader

behaviors did result in a higher level of AC compared to the level generated

for groups led by transactional leaders (t = 3.95, p < .01). The results indi-cate that external leader behaviors did not result in significantly different

levels of AC compared with either transactional (t = 2.12, ns) or transfor-

mational behaviors (t = 1.86, ns). Consequently, Hypothesis 4a received

support. The results suggest that transactional behaviors are associated with









lower levels of AC and contribute to lower AC over and above any contri-

bution made via the CC to AC transmission compared to, at least, the trans-

formational leader condition. However, there is no significant difference

between the transactional and external leader conditions, and, consequently,

there is no support for Hypothesis 4b.

Discussion

Our study attempted to examine the consequences of transformational,

transactional, and external leader behaviors for conflict generation within

decision-making groups. Central among our findings is the notion that


Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of Affective Conflict by Leadership

Style (Cognitive Conflict is Not Included in the Model)

t

M SD n 1 2


2. Transformational 2.91 0.75 23 5.14**

3. External 2.17 0.75 22 1.73** 3.31**


** p < .01.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of Affective Conflict by Leadership

Style (Cognitive Conflict is Included in the Model)

t

M SD n 1 2


2. Transformational 2.71 0.73 23 3.95**

3. External 2.29 0.70 22 2.12** 1.86


** p < .01.








transformational leader styles have a greater propensity for generating

functional and dysfunctional conflict in a team context. Our results indicate

that transformational leader behaviors have the potential to generate moreCC than both transactional and external leader behaviors. In turn, higher

levels of CC suggest that members of groups led by transformational

leaders fight harder to defend their positions and to challenge those of other

group members. The evidence of greater task involvement by groups in the

transformational condition is consistent with the findings of transforma-

tional leadership research (e.g., Howell & Frost, 1989; Seltzer & Bass,

1990). However, our results also suggest that the fundamental characteris-

tics embedded in transformational leader behaviors possess a greater poten-tial for generating dysfunctional conflict.

The results indicated that behaviors reflective of transformational leaders

generate more AC than behaviors reflective of transactional leaders. Higher

levels of AC, even after controlling for CC, suggest that emotions were

engaged to a greater extent than in the other conditions. This pattern of

results is consistent with the hypotheses that transformational leadership

behaviors trigger higher order needs, the mechanism which generates addi-

tional motivation among the group members to engage in the debate of ideas. These findings also support the assertions that transformational

behaviors evoke self-esteem, thereby causing group members to become

more emotionally involved in the interaction, and thereby trigger higher

levels of AC.

Our study suggests that transformational leadership behaviors can, in

fact, present a double-edged sword for decision-making groups. Although

transformational behaviors can generate higher levels of CC, these behav-

iors may also inadvertently create disproportionately higher levels of AC.

This challenges the popular perception that transformational leadership is

superior across all situations (e.g., Bass, 1990; Hater & Bass, 1988).

The notion of a double-edged sword to transformational or charismatic

leaders has never been recognized in the literature beyond the notion of

groupthink (Janis, 1982). Ironically, the findings of our research suggest

that transformational behaviors can, in fact, generate dysfunctional (affec-

tive) conflict among group members even though the goals of the leader are

foremost in the members’ minds. The challenge, it would seem, is to chan-

nel the strength of the transformational style while understanding and con-trolling for the potential negative impact on AC. With regard to minimizing

dysfunctional conflict, our study indicates that the most effective style of

leadership behavior appears to be reflected in transactional behaviors. This

finding is particularly important because most scholarly advice tends to









caution against the use of transactional (or “traditional”) leadership behav-

ior in favor of either transformational or external leader behavior.

Our study sheds additional light on the nature of the relationship betweenleadership behavior and group conflict and is intended to contribute to theory

building in this relatively uncharted area. However, it is important to note that

this study did not include an actual measure of the specific processes through

which leadership behavior results in AC or CC. For example, although we

posited that encouragement of ego involvement may make the team more

prone to AC, alternative explanations cannot be fully ruled out. It could be that

groups led by individuals who exhibited transformational leader behaviors

may have experienced more conflict simply as a function of the amount of conversation generated in such groups. That is, perhaps such leaders were

more successful at generating higher levels of participation among all group

members, which consequently made the group more prone to conflict.

The ability of transactional behaviors to control conflict equally requires

fuller investigation. For example, we noted that transactional leaders focus

on rules of conduct and on positive interactions. Consequently, it is unclear

whether these actions, rather than the actions of the transformational leader,

accounted most significantly for differences in conflict generated amongthe different groups. That is, transactional behaviors may reduce the

amount of CC and AC generated and thereby discourage such conflict.

Future research is required to address a number of other limitations of

our study that restrict the generalizability of our results. First, groups

worked within a short-term, limited duration and were composed of under-

graduate students as participants, who, compared with real-life decision

makers, tend to have less experience in making complicated organizational

decisions. However, it is difficult to predict how this limitation affects the

pattern of results. With respect to the role of conflict in decision making,

students are commonly used for studying decision-making groups (Jehn &

Mannix, 2001), and the results obtained in the laboratory tend to be similar

to those obtained in the field (e.g., Amason, 1996). A second factor limit-

ing the generalizability of our study is the use of only male leaders. Given

the potentially important role of gender in group dynamics and leadership,

it would be useful to replicate this research using female group leaders.

Our results indicated that not all groups equally adopted the structured-

conflict process. Specifically, as mentioned above, the teams led by anexternal leader apparently followed instructions to a lesser degree than did

the teams led by transactional and transformational leaders. Future research

needs to examine this discrepancy. Although this raises some question

regarding the interpretability of our results, it may be unavoidable. For









example, the nature of the external leader role could be such that groups

feel less guided than with a transformational or transactional leader. The

very nature of these roles could account for the differences in the degree of adoption of the conflict methodology.

Our study attempted to capture and model those leader behaviors that

are fundamentally characteristic of the three styles of leadership. However,

even within the confines of our laboratory study, it is difficult to isolate

those behaviors that are solely the domain of each leadership style. For

example, transactional leaders engage in forms of goal setting and the facil-

itation of self-efficacy, both of which are also reflected in the behaviors

modeled by transformational leaders. Future studies should attempt to fur-ther discern the characteristics of the different leadership styles with regard

to their differential impact on conflict. In addition, our manipulation check

was limited to a confirmation of the face validity of our manipulations. In

the future, a different form of manipulation check should be used, one that

allows for an accurate comparison among the leadership conditions (e.g.,

videotape groups’ deliberations).

Finally, the central aim of the present study was to examine how leader-

ship styles can influence the nature and level of conflict generated in thegroup context. However, this study did not include an examination of the

consequences for group outcomes—the quality of group decisions gener-

ated. Future research clearly needs to examine the impact of leadership

style and group conflict on eventual group outcomes. It is our hope that this

study will spark future research efforts aimed at more fully exploring the

nature of the relationship between leadership styles and group conflict and

the impact of this relationship on group performance.

References

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., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and inter-

action norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495-516.

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.

Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback.

Psychological Inquiry, 3, 303-311.

Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership train-

ing on attitudinal and financial outcomes: A field experiment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81, 827-832.









Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsi-

bilities and Rights Journal, 4, 25-36.

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.

Borenstein, M., & Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis: A computer program.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in nego-

tiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing

work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.

Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256.

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, July-August). How manage-

ment teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, 75, 77-85.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management

Journal, 13, 17-37.

Georgopolous, B. S. (1986). Organizational structure, problem-solving, and effectiveness. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695-702.

House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson

(Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189-207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University

Press.

House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated

theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7 , 323-352.

House, R. J. (1998). Appendix: Measures and assessment for the charismatic leadership

approach: Scales, latent constructs, loadings, Cronbach alphas, and interclass correlations.In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches.

Stamford, CT: JAI.

House, R. J., & Shamir, B. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic,

and visionary theories. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and

research (pp. 81-108). New York: Academic Press.

Howell, J. M., & Frost, P. J. (1989). A laboratory study of charismatic leadership. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 243-269.

Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E., & Veenstra, C. (1999). How task and person conflict shape the roleof positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management, 25(2), 117-142.

Javidan, M., Bemmels, B., Devine, K. S., & Dastmalchian, A. (1995). Superior and subordinate

gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Human Relations, 48, 1271-1284.









Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of

value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223-238.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.

Jehn, K. A., Chadwick, C., & Thatscher, S. M. B. (1997). To agree or not to agree: The effects

of value congruence, individual demographic dissimilarity, and conflict on workgroup out-

comes. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 287-305.

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study

of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,

238-251.

Keller, R. T. (1989). A test of the Path-Goal theory of leadership and need for clarity as a moder-

ator in research and development organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 208-212.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismaticleadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,

36-51.

Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., & Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action:

The decision to trust as a social decision. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in

organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 357-389). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing out-

looks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.

Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem-solving discussions and conferences: Leadership methods

and skills. New York: McGraw-Hill.Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. J. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves: The external lead-

ership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106-128.

Moorhead, G., Neck, C. P., & West, M. S. (1998). The tendency toward defective decision

making within self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink for the 21st century.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 327-351.

Morgeson, F. P. (in press). The external relationship of self-managing teams: Intervening in the

context of novel and disruptive events. The Journal of Applied Psychology.

Mulvey, P. W., Veiga, J. F., & Elsass, P. M. (1996, February). When teammates raise a white

flag. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 40-49.

Neck, C. P., Connerley, M. L., Zuniga, C. A., & Goel, S. (1999). Family therapy meets self-managing teams: Examining self-managing team performance through team member per-

ception. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 245-259.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of

work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28.

Peterson, R. S. (1997). A directive leadership style in group decision making can be both

virtue and vice: Evidence from elite and experimental groups. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72, 1107-1121.

Phillips, J. S., & Lord, R. G. (1982). Schematic information processing and perceptions of

leadership in problem-solving groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 , 486-492.

Pruitt, D. G. (1991). Strategy in negotiation. In V. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation: Analysis, approaches, issues (pp. 85-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement.

New York: Random House.









Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being:

Informative and directive functions of affective state. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 31, 513-523.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving

strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy,

and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51-71.

Schwenk, C. R. (1990). Conflict in organizational decision making: An exploratory study of

its effects in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations. Management Science, 36 , 436-448.

Schwenk, C., & Cosier, R. (1993). Effects of consensus and devil’s advocacy on strategic decision-

making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 126-139.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B. M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consid-

eration. Journal of Management, 16 , 693-703.Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leader

behavior in military units: Subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’

appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 387-399.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification

in military units: direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

30, 612-640.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top man-

agement teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1),

102-111.

Speisman, J. C., Lazarus, R. S., Mordkoff, A. M., & Davison, L. A. (1964). The experimentalreduction of stress based on ego-defense theory. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,

68, 367-380.

Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. J. (1999). Developing effective self-managing

work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24, 340-366.

Thomas, D. C. (1999). Cultural diversity and work group effectiveness: An experimental

study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 242-263.

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation process in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette

& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,

pp. 651-717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Thomas, K. W., & Pondy, L. R. (1977). Toward an “intent” model of conflict managementamong principal parties. Human Relations, 30, 1089-1102.

Tjosvold, D. (1991). Team organization: An enduring competitive advantage. New York: John

Wiley.

Tjosvold, D. (1993). Learning to manage conflict . New York: Lexington Books.

Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams.

Organizational Dynamics, 26 (1), 49-61.

Wall, J. A. J., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management,

21, 515-558.

Whyte, G. (2000). Make good decisions by effectively managing the decision making process.

In E. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior (pp. 316-330).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Wofford, J. C., & Liska, L. Z. (1993). Path-goal theories of leadership: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Management, 19, 857-876.









Igor Kotlyar is a part-time lecturer in the School of Administrative Studies at York University.

He received his PhD in organizational behavior from the University of Toronto. His research

interests include leadership training, employee recruitment, and performance appraisal.

Leonard Karakowsky is an associate professor in the School of Administrative Studies at

York University. He received his PhD in organizational behavior from the University of

Toronto. His current research interests include knowledge management in teams, organiza-

tional trust, and managing group conflict.


small group research 2006 kotlyar 377 403

Documents