Dual-level transformational leadership and team ... - Springer Link

Asia Pac J Manag (2017) 34:399–421 DOI 10.1007/s10490-016-9492-x

Dual-level transformational leadership and team information elaboration: The mediating role of relationship conflict and moderating role of middle way thinking Yahua Cai 1 & Liangding Jia 2 & Juexing Li 2

Published online: 23 November 2016 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Transformational leadership studies identify a dual-level model comprising group-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership. In this study, a relational perspective is used to develop a moderated mediation model linking dual-level transformational leadership to within-team information elaboration. Data collected from 100 teams in 32 Chinese high-technology firms reveal that group-focused transformational leadership increases information elaboration, while differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership decreases information elaboration. Team relationship conflict mediates the effects. Furthermore, middle-way thinking as a culture-specific Chinese thinking style moderates the indirect effects. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords Group-focused transformational leadership . Individual-focused transformational leadership . Team relationship conflict . Information elaboration . Middle-way thinking

* Liangding Jia [email protected] Yahua Cai [email protected] Juexing Li [email protected]

1

School of International Business Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Yangpu, Shanghai, China

2

School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

400

Cai Y. et al.

Transformational leadership, a functional leadership style, promotes team effectiveness (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013). The recently conceptualized dual-level model of transformational leadership (van Knippenberg & Sitkin, 2013), has received considerable empirical support for its construct validity (Schriesheim, Wu, & Scandura, 2009; Wang & Howell, 2010; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010). The model shows that transformational leadership may be either group-focused, an average leadership paradigm in which all team members are treated similarly (Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984), or individual-focused, a situational leadership paradigm focused on individuals rather than on teams as a whole (Fiedler, 1967). Despite promising progress in the dual-level model of transformational leadership, several questions remain. First, current studies have adopted either a motivational perspective identifying collective efficacy as a mediator linking team leaders’ dual-level transformational leadership with team effectiveness (Wu et al., 2010), or a behavioral perspective identifying behavioral integration as a mediator linking CEOs’ dual-level transformational leadership with organizational effectiveness (Zhang, Li, Ullrich, & van Dick, 2015). However, the collective efficacy and behavioral integration mediators fail to fully capture the fact that employees must deal with interpersonal relations in their daily work, so relationships are fundamental to organizational behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Weick, 1979). A relational perspective considers relationship configurations rather than independent, Bobjective^ entities (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000) and is theoretically essential in addressing dual-level transformational leadership (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010). Second, although many criteria have been investigated, team relationship conflict and information elaboration have yet to be linked with the dual-level model of transformational leadership. Team relationship conflict is defined as Binterpersonal incompatibility among team members about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style^ (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003: 741). Team members must repeatedly and deeply interact socially before they can elaborate on information (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). From the relational perspective, we can theoretically expect the dual-level model of transformational leadership to cause team relationship conflict, with subsequent damage to information elaboration. Third, different cultures are known to handle conflict differently (Chen, Tjosvold, Huang, & Xu, 2011b; Leung, Brew, Zhang, & Zhang, 2011; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2006). That is, Bculturally shaped beliefs and expectations regarding conflict situations would modify people’s reactions and behaviors toward conflict^ (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012: 364). Although cultural factors shape employee reactions to workplace stimuli, the specific underlying cultural factors have yet to be theorized and tested at team levels (Chang, Jia, Takeuchi, & Cai, 2014; Tsui, Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). In this study, we address the unanswered questions by developing a team-level moderated mediation view linking dual-level transformational leadership to team information elaboration. We gathered data from 100 work teams at 32 hightechnology firms in the People’s Republic of China. We draw on the relational perspective, social categorization theory, and self-concept-based theory of leadership to theorize an indirect relationship among dual-level transformational leadership, team

Dual-level transformational leadership and team information...

401

relationship conflict, and information elaboration. Specifically, group-focused transformational leadership suppresses relationship conflict by activating the collective self in team members; differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership breeds relationship conflict by priming the relational self in team members. Relationship conflict naturally reduces information elaboration. In addition to the two indirect effects, we theorize that middle-way thinking, a Chinese-specific ontological thinking style that guides Chinese interpersonal behaviors (Jones & Nisbett, 1972), would ameliorate the negative association between team relationship conflict and information elaboration, and thus moderate the two lines of indirect effects. Figure 1 shows the overall model. We extend the previous literature in at least four ways. First, we investigate team information elaboration as a dependent variable influenced by dual-level transformational leadership. Information elaboration is critical for predicting team performance (Kearney & Gebert, 2009), team decision quality (van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009), and team creativity (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012) and is especially crucial for knowledge intensive teams such as the high-technology firms we sampled (Jia, Shaw, Tsui, & Park, 2014). Second, we are among the first to adopt the relational perspective to postulate how dual-level transformational leadership influences information elaboration through relationship conflict. We further include a relational-oriented variable, team middle-way thinking, as moderating the indirect effect. Third, we answer conflict management literature calls to investigate how specific culture variables influence reactions to and handling of conflict, especially relationship conflict. We chose middle-way thinking because it fundamentally guides the deliberation, selection, and execution of decisions in daily Chinese life and is thus essential for understanding conflict management in Chinese organizations (Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010; Leung, Koch, & Lu, 2002). Fourth, responding to calls for context-sensitive research (Tsui, 2006, 2012), we add generalizability evidence by studying dual-level transformational leadership in a non-Western context. More important, we answer calls to conduct contextspecific Chinese organizational behavior research (Tsui, 2012) by including middle-way thinking as a moderator. Group-focused Transformational Leadership Inspirational Motivation Attributive Idealized Influence Behavioral Idealized Influence Differentiated Individualfocused Transformational Leadership

Team Middle-way Thinking

Team Relationship Conflict

Team Information Elaboration

Intellectual Stimulation Individualized consideration Fig. 1 A team-level moderated-mediation model of dual-level transformational leadership, relationship conflict, middle-way thinking, and team information elaboration

402

Cai Y. et al.

Theoretical foundation and hypotheses Dual-level transformational leadership and team relationship conflict Dual-level transformational leadership Kark and Shamir (2002) drew heavily on the self-concept-based theory of leadership (Lord, Brown, & Feiberg, 1999; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993) and coined the term dual-level transformational leadership. The self-concept-based theory of leadership basically argues that leaders influence followers’ personal and social self-identities (Lord et al., 1999). People define their personal identity based on their sense of individual uniqueness and define their social identity based on their relations to others or membership in social groups (Lord et al., 1999). Some transformational leadership behaviors are likely to prime the relational self; others are likely to prime the collective self. The two lines of influence can be parallel when leaders do both simultaneously. From the empirical aspect, Schriesheim et al. (2009) used individual- and team-level samples for a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and found that the measurement model of transformational leadership fit better when they measured team-level idealized influence/ inspirational motivation and measured individual-level intellectual motivation/individualized consideration. From the theoretical aspect, Wu et al. (2010) looked at group-focused and individual-focused transformational leadership from the motivational perspective. In groupfocused transformational leadership, the leader treats team members similarly, so that they have equal idealized influence and inspirational motivation (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). In individual-focused transformational leadership, the leader focuses on individual team members rather than on the team as whole, so they have individualized intellectual motivation and consideration (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Further empirical investigations have provided construct validity evidence demonstrating that the two leadership behaviors could have different or even opposite influences on organizational outcomes at individual (Wang & Howell, 2012), team (Wu et al., 2010), and firm levels (Zhang et al., 2015). Group-focused transformational leadership and team relationship conflict Social categorization theory (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Turner, 1987) fundamentally deals with how group membership defines the self and how activated interpersonal processes guiding group members’ behaviors. Generally, people attach great emotional and interpersonal importance to a prototypical group, automatically activate depersonalizing selfcategorization processes, and pursue the group’s collective welfare (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Group-focused transformational leaders treat all team members similarly (Kark & Shamir, 2002) because they focus on whole teams rather than on individual team members (Wu et al., 2010). According to that taxonomy, transformational leadership has three overarching group-focused dimensions—inspirational motivation, attributive idealized influences, and behavioral idealized influences. Inspirational motivation includes creating and presenting attractive visions of the future, using symbols and emotional arguments, and demonstrating optimism and enthusiasm (Bass, 1985). Attributive and behavioral idealized influences include motivating self-sacrificial behaviors for group benefits, setting personal examples, and demonstrating high ethical standards (Kark & Shamir, 2002). The self-concept-based theory of leadership purports that group-focused transformational leadership includes


403

articulating compelling collective visions and demonstrating high ethical standards (Lord et al., 1999). When team members are exposed intensively and repeatedly to collectiveorientated group-focused transformational leadership, they autonomously activate the collective self so that group missions and interests overtake self-interest; they transcend personal interests in pursuit of collective interests. By depersonalizing themselves, members place less importance on surface-level (e.g., age, gender) or deep-level (e.g., personality, value) differences (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Hogg & Terry, 2000) that may generate mistrust, dislike, and conflict (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). Furthermore, to achieve collective goals, members proactively suppress conflict-inducing behavior such as showing contempt toward team members who have different perspectives about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style. Therefore, we purport that group-focused transformational leadership will suppress team relationship conflict and formally hypothesize: Hypothesis 1 Group-focused transformational leadership relates negatively to team relationship conflict.

Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership and team relationship conflict Transformational leaders may choose to provide customized socioemotional support and coaching to develop personal strengths. By focusing unevenly on individuals rather than on teams as a whole, they force individuals to challenge assumptions and derive novel and creative solutions. Intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration thus fit well into the individual-focused transformational leadership (Bass, 1985; Wu et al., 2010). The self-concept-based theory of leadership postulates that individual-focused transformational leadership may prime followers’ relational rather than collective self (Kark & Shamir, 2002) and discourage the formation of a superordinate group identity (Turner, 1987). We predict that relationship conflict will likely rise when team members lack collective identification (Hogg & Terry, 2000). As a result, they would focus on their differences and tend to provoke team relationship conflict. We formally hypothesize: Hypothesis 2 Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership relates positively to team relationship conflict.

Team relationship conflict and information elaboration Information elaboration is far more crucial for team effectiveness (van Knippenberg et al., 2004) than simple information exchange and sharing. Information elaboration indicates that team members deeply discuss and integrate their ideas, knowledge, and perspectives relevant to team tasks (Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As such, information elaboration predicts critical team variables such as performance (Kearney & Gebert, 2009), decision quality (van Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2009), and creativity (Hoever et al., 2012).

404

Cai Y. et al.

The social categorization perspective contends that subgroups’ relationship to their superordinate group identity determines the relations between subgroups (Hogg & Terry, 2000). If a superordinate group identity is elusive, team members tend to identify with their subgroup. Hence, relationship conflict will divide teams into subgroups, largely organizing social interactions within coalitions. Interpersonal incompatibility and hostility make subgroups undermine the importance of task-relevant information from other subgroups (Jehn & Bezrukova, 2010) because they lack superordinate group identity (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Also, subgroups are less likely to share knowledge with other subgroup members. Naturally, information elaboration suffers. Relationship conflict is strongly demotivating (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011a); it undermines team identification, and discourages the elaboration of task-relevant information, so that members are less likely to be attached to the team or to value its collective interest (Blader & Tyler, 2009). The group engagement model (Tyler & Blader, 2003), largely drawing on social categorization theory (Turner, 1987), explains that team identification affects willingness to cooperate. When the team lacks identification, team members are likely to perceive other members’ goals as competitive rather than cooperative, and will thus avoid deep-level information elaboration. Taken together, we formally hypothesize: Hypothesis 3 Team relationship conflict relates negatively to team information elaboration. To reiterate, group-focused transformational leadership can encourage superordinate group identity, foster within-team information elaboration, and alleviate relationship conflicts that inhibit information elaboration (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Turner, 1987). On the other hand, under differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership, superordinate group identity is less likely; ingroup favoritism then causes intragroup polarization that breeds relationship conflict (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Turner, 1987). In sum, dual-level transformational leadership influences team information elaboration through the relational-based mechanism of within-team relationship conflict. Thus, we formally hypothesize: Hypothesis 4a Group-focused transformational leadership indirectly relates to team information elaboration through team relationship conflict. Hypothesis 4b Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership indirectly relates to team information elaboration through team relationship conflict.

Team middle-way thinking as a moderator Middle-way thinking Middle-way thinking, also called Zhong Yong, is grounded in the Confucianism doctrine of the mean (Chan, 1963), which teaches that multiple truths constitute reality, while single truth is nonexistent. The view generates inevitable dilemmas that prompt a synthesis-based thinking style to resolve apparent contradictions (Chen, Leung, Li, & Ou, 2015; Leung et al., 2002). Thus, middle-way thinking considers the most appropriate action in interpersonal situations, especially under interpersonal conflict. The concept falls under the relationalism umbrella construct, representing the Chinese-culture-specific ontological thinking style


405

guiding Chinese interpersonal relationships (Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Wu & Lin, 2005). The Confucian belief system sees middle-way thinking as embodying three appropriate behavior subdimensions: holistic thinking, divergent thinking, and harmony orientation (Wu & Lin, 2005), associated with fundamental principles of holism, change, and contradiction (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). The principle of change holds that reality is constantly fluctuating, dynamic, and flexible (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Correspondingly, divergent thinking allows consideration of multiple alternative problems and solutions (Guilford, 1967). The principle of holism proposes that nothing exists in isolation; everything is relationally and interdependently connected to a big picture (Peng & Nisbett, 1999). Holistic thinkers tend to address interpersonal issues from global rather than local perspectives (Wu & Lin, 2005), and to make more situational or contextual attributions (Liu & Friedman, 2012). Finally, the principle of contradiction maintains that reality is imprecise, undecided, complex, and contradictory. Harmony orientation represents the search for equilibrium and sustained interpersonal relationships (Lun, 2012), an approach toward building genuinely harmonious and mutually respectful interpersonal relationships (Chen et al., 2015). A prototypical middle-way-thinking employee tends to harmonize emotional tension encountered during workplace interactions, to approach workplace events holistically, and to process divergent information before making final decisions. People who are middle-way thinkers avoid going to extremes, behave in situationally appropriate ways, maintain interpersonal concord, and consider all perspectives carefully, even when opinions come from those with whom they are in conflict (Ji et al., 2010; Leung et al., 2002, 2011; Wang, Leung, & Zhou, 2014). Although culture-based constructs such as collectivism and power distance can be assessed at the team level (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Yang, Mossholder, & Peng, 2007), we still must use a multilevel lens to elaborate team-level middle-way thinking (Chan, 1998). In keeping with multilevel theory, we use an additive composition model (Chan, 1998), which specifies that constructs at different hierarchical levels have a straightforward homogenous functional relationship (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004). The team middle-way thinking construct is a linear summary of individual origins, regardless of its individual level variances. Put simply, each team has a middle-way thinking score based on the mean of all members’ middle-way thinking. Not all team members must be middle-way thinkers for middle-way thinking to be a team-level property. Team middle-way thinking as moderator Despite ambiguous results about task conflict effects, meta-analytic investigations agree that relationship conflict is detrimental (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; de Wit et al., 2012) and must be ameliorated through conflict management approaches (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008; Chen & Tjosvold, 2002; Wong, Wei, & Tjosvold, 2014). According to cooperation and competition conflict management approaches (Deutsch, 1973) and social categorization theory, cooperative conflict management is more likely when team members form a superordinate group identity and avoid socially categorizing one another or making prototype-based assumptions regarding team members (Turner, 1987). By pursuing the collective interest, they temper the emotional tensions inherent in relationship conflict (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001). Consequently, they believe they can achieve shared goals, exchange ideas, and strive for mutually beneficial solutions (Leung et al., 2002) for better information elaboration. In contrast, groups that lack a superordinate

406

Cai Y. et al.

group identity will be more likely to show competitive conflict management. Members will think prototypically about other members, encouraging intragroup polarization, and escalating conflict. In this case, emotional tension and direct in-group rivalry discourage idea exchange and elaboration. In sum, cooperative conflict-handling approaches that satisfy all party’s concerns may be better for managing relationship conflict (Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2005; Deutsch, 1973) because it is less likely to induce social categorization process that subsequently escalate conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2006). We theorize that middle-way thinking moderates the negative effect of relationship conflict on within-team information elaboration. We assume that the three dimensions of middle-way thinking work together to buffer the dysfunctional emotions that may escalate relationship conflict (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998), and to encourage cooperative rather than competitive conflict management approaches. We expect that the individual-level association between middle-way thinking and conflict management approach can be generalized to the team level because people tend to reciprocate conflict management approaches (Brett et al., 1998). Thus we speculate that teams can develop shared norms regarding cooperative or competitive approaches (Wong et al., 2014). Specifically, teams comprising high middle-way thinkers will be strongly harmonyoriented to work in a Bconflict-free manner^ (Jia, 2008: 25). Harmony orientation also discourages the experience and expression of extreme emotions and thus encourages a cooperative conflict management approach (Ji et al., 2010; Leung et al., 2002). Second, such teams think holistically regarding contradictory cues that conflict with their own viewpoints or are proposed by others who are in relationship conflict. Third, because of their divergent thinking, they will address relationship conflict episodes from global rather than local perspectives (Wu & Lin, 2005), considering their coworkers’ viewpoints from diverse perspectives, for less polarized interactions even in relationship conflicts. In sum, for teams that score highly on middle-way thinking, they should adopt cooperative conflict management to form a superordinate group identity (Turner, 1987), thus relationship conflict should have fewer negative effects on team information elaboration. On the contrary, low middle-way thinking teams are low in harmony orientation, will encounter more conflict when work together (Jia, 2008), more likely to adopt a competitive conflict management approach. When individuals must deal with intense interpersonal relationship conflicts, their negative emotions absorb cognitive resources, leaving them unable to devote energy to technical and decision-making tasks (Evan, 1965). Second, low middle-way thinking teams lack holistic thinking for tolerating contradictions. Members will focus on their own interests, which polarizes team interactions and makes competitive management more likely. Third, without divergent thinking and without a superordinate group identity, members focus on emotions generated by subgroup competition and process information rigidly and inflexibly (Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981). In sum, to the extent competitive conflict management inhibits a superordinate group identity, we expect relationship conflict to more negatively affect information elaboration. Taken together, we argue that high middle-way thinking teams tend to adopt cooperative conflict management. Members are less likely to form a superordinate group identity and less likely to withdraw from information elaboration, so team relationship conflict will be less negatively associated with information elaboration. In contrast, low middle-way thinking teams will tend to adopt competitive conflict management,


407

strengthening within-team polarization, highlighting interpersonal risks from team relationship conflict, escalating conflict, and augmenting the negative association between team relationship conflict and information elaboration. We hypothesize: Hypothesis 5 Middle-way thinking moderates the association between team conflict and information elaboration: teams that have high middle-way thinking will show a weaker negative association. So far, we have developed the theoretical underpinnings for team relationship conflict as a mediator and for team middle-way thinking as a moderator. Specifically, team relationship conflict mediates the relationship between dual-level transformational leadership and team information elaboration. Team middle-way thinking moderates the negative association between team relationship conflict and information elaboration. The overarching relational-based rationales underpinning the hypotheses suggest an overall moderated mediation model. In summary, team middle-way thinking moderates dual-level transformational leadership’s effect on team relationship conflict transmitted through team information elaboration. The social categorization theory and self-concept-based theory of leadership indicate that dual-level transformational leadership may augment or attenuate social categorization among team members depending on whether team members think collectively or relationally. Activated social categorization may create intragroup polarization, breeding relationship conflict, and endangering information elaboration. Teams that have lower middle-way thinking are more likely to use competitive conflict management. Consequently, dual-level transformational leadership will have a stronger effect on information elaboration. In contrast, teams that have higher middle-way thinking are more likely to proactively adopt cooperative conflict management and de-escalating conflict, so that dual-level transformational leadership has a weaker effect on conflict and information elaboration. Stated formally: Hypothesis 6 Team middle-way thinking moderates group-focused transformational leadership’s indirect effect on team information elaboration through team relationship conflict; teams that have lower middle-way thinking will show stronger indirect effects. Hypothesis 7 Team middle-way thinking moderates differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership’s indirect effect on team information elaboration through team relationship conflict; teams that have lower middle-way thinking will show stronger indirect effects.

Methods Sampling and procedures We conducted this research in one of China’s most innovative and energetic economic areas, located in an eastern province of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). With the help of the local government, we conducted onsite surveys to collect data from 100 work groups of professional level employees from 32 high-technology firms in diverse

408

Cai Y. et al.

industries. To be accredited as high-tech, an organization must have self-owned intellectual property rights to their core technologies. They must have products or services in key hi-tech areas of electronics and communications, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and astronautics, new material and service, new energy and energy saving, resources and environment protection, or transformation for traditional industries. More than 30% of their employees must have college degrees or above, and more than 10% of their employees must be engaged in R&D. They must have minimum R&D investment at 6% of total annual sales of no less than 50 million renminbi (RMB), and must be continuously engaged in R&D for creating and applying new science and technology, or substantively improving existing technologies, products, and services. At least 60% of their annual sales must come from hi-tech products and services. The sample met Milkovich’s (1987) definition of hi-tech organizations in that they emphasize Binvention and innovation in their business strategy, deploy a significant percentage of their financial resources to R&D, employ a relatively high percentage of scientists and engineers in their workforce, and compete in worldwide, short-life-cycle product markets^ (Milkovich, 1987: 80). First, we contacted the CEOs or directors of the board of the selected firms, and sent them invitation letters outlining the research requirements and our commitments. After we obtained their approval, we talked with the HR directors to learn about the organizational structure, to determine the participating teams and employees, to discuss the survey timeline and methods, and to gather the names of the participating teams and employees. Then we conducted onsite surveys within each firm. The HR director gathered the participants into a room to fill out the questionnaires. For the participants who could not leave their work stations, we delivered the survey to them. We gave each participant the researcher’s name card and a gift, and expressed our confidential commitments. We immediately checked each returned questionnaire to make sure all sections were completed. For the absent participants, we left the surveys, the name cards, the gifts, and the envelopes stamped and addressed to the HR directors. We asked the HR directors to collect the surveys, seal them in front of the participants, and mail them back to us immediately. Our survey questionnaires were answered by 836 team members and 100 team supervisors. The final sample included 693 team members and 100 team supervisors from 32 organizations. The valid response rate was 83% because of our onsite approach of distributing and returning the questionnaires. The teams included groups of various types such as R&D, customer services, marketing, product management, supply chain, and manufacturing. The diverse task contexts and organizational settings of sample enhance the external validity of this study. The mean team size was 9.36 members (s.d. = 5.64); team size ranged from 3 to 36. Measures To test our hypotheses, we measured several control variables and four key constructs—transformational leadership, relationship conflict, middle-way thinking, and team information elaboration. We used the classic back-translation procedure to ensure the cross-culture semantic equivalence of our key measurements (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973).


409

Group-focused transformational leadership We adopted the group-focused transformational leadership scale from MLQ (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire) (Bass & Avolio, 1995). It has three subdimensions: attributive idealized influence, behavioral idealized influence, and inspirational motivation. Team members rated the specific leadership behaviors their team leaders displayed during the workday. The response scale ranged from 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree. To capture group-focused transformational leadership, we anchored the reference of all items at the team level. Attributive idealized influence included four items (α = .86): for example, BOur team leader specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose in working with the team as a whole.^ Behavioral idealized influence included four items (α = .84): for example, BOur team leader talks to us about his or her most important values and beliefs.^ Inspirational motivation included four items (α = .90): for example BOur team leader talks optimistically about the future of the team as a whole.^ In line with prior research (Wu et al., 2010), we used the average score of subdimensions to reflect the overarching group-focused transformational leadership construct. Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership We adopted the individual-focused transformational leadership scale from MLQ (Bass & Avolio, 1995), with two subdimensions: intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Team members rated the specific leadership behaviors their team leader displayed during the workday. The response scale ranged from 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree. To capture individual-focused transformational leadership, all items were directly anchored at the individual level. Intellectual stimulation included four items (α = .92): for example, BMy team leader gets me to look at problems from many different angles.^ Individualized consideration included four items (α = .91): for example, BMy team leader helps me to develop my strengths.^ As a configural group property, differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership represents the disparity type of diversity within a group (Harrison & Klein, 2007). We adopted coefficient of variation (Allison, 1978) as our measurement approach. Demography researchers often use the approach as a scale-invariant measure of dispersion (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). We calculated it by dividing the within-group standard deviation of the individual-focused leadership measure by the within-group mean score. We also averaged the two subdimensions to form an overarching differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership construct. Relationship conflict Relationship conflict was measured with a 3-item scale (α = .89) ranging from 1 (very little) to 6 (very large), adopted from Jehn and Mannix (2001). Team members rated relationship conflict: for example, BHow much relationship tension is there in your work team?^ Information elaboration Information elaboration was measured with a 4-item scale (α = .89) ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), adopted from Kearney et al. (2009). Team members rated

410

Cai Y. et al.

information elaboration: for example, BThe members of this team carefully consider the unique information provided by each individual team member.^ Team middle-way thinking Team-member middle-way thinking was measured with a 13-item scale (α = .91) ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (totally agree), adopted from Wu and Lin (2005). Team members rated their own middle-way thinking: for example, BI consider various possible situations when making decisions.^ As demonstrated in the theoretical part, we conceptualize team middle-way thinking as an additive composition of its individual-level origins. The additive composition model specifies a straightforward homogenous functional relationship between constructs at different hierarchical levels (Chen et al., 2004). Thus we treat team middle-way thinking as a linear summary of individual-level middle-way thinking, ignoring its individual-level variance. Methodologically, we calculated the mean score among team member’s middle-way thinking to represent team middle-way thinking. Control variables Following classic assumptions that demographic composition has fundamental implications for team processes and outcomes (Tsui & Gutek, 1999) and prior research (e.g., Wu et al., 2010), we selected team average age, female percentage, average education level, and size as covariates to rule out alternative explanations. Age was measured in nine intervals from 1 (26 years below) to 9 (60 years above) with five years in each interval. Education was measured by final level (1 = high school or below, 2 = technical school, 3 = junior college, 4 = undergraduate, 5 = Master, 6 = Doctor). Size was measured by number of team members. Discriminant validity analysis We performed two separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) to investigate the discriminant validity of the priori factor structure of three constructs with individual as the referent (intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and middle-way thinking) and five constructs with group as the referent (attributive idealized influence, behavioral idealized influence, inspirational motivation, relationship conflict, and information elaboration). The priori three-factor individual reference construct fit well with the data (χ2 = 912.34, df = 186, RMSEA = .075, RMR = .035, CFI = .97), and the priori five-factor group reference construct also fit well with the data (χ2 = 362.63, df = 142, RMSEA = .047, RMR = .028, CFI = .99). All factor loadings were substantially large (ranging from .59 to .89) and significant at the .01 level. The results reveal that our measurement instruments have acceptable psychometric properties. Data aggregation As shared property, the three subdimensions of group-focused transformational leadership, relationship conflict, and information elaboration fit into Chan’s (1998) referent shift consensus model in which within-group agreement and between-group variance of lower-level measurement is required to justify the appropriateness of aggregation. We used Rwg to reflect within-group inter-rater agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). Results revealed that the


411

median value of Rwg among five shared properties are .95, .93, .96, .92, and .92 respectively. We used ICC indices to reflect between-group variance. ICC1 represents the proportional variance accounted by group membership and ICC2 reflects the reliability of group mean value (Bliese, 2000). We performed a series of one-way ANOVA to calculate ICCs. ICC1 of the five shared constructs were .14, .09, .13, .11, and .15 respectively, and ICC2 of the five shared constructs were .61, .47, .58, .54, and .63 respectively. Although the ICC1 value of relationship conflict was relatively small, our aggregation was primarily theory-driven. The relatively small value of ICC2 might be caused by small group size (average less than 10 in our sample) (Bliese, 2000). The two collections of results substantially justify our aggregation of individual-level measurement into group-level. Common method variance analysis We obtained the measures of interest from team members, albeit aggregated into team level. This raises the issue of common method variance. First, this study was part of a data collection effort. Following instructions from Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003), we addressed the common method variance problem by organizing measures of the independent, mediating, and dependent variables at different sections of the questionnaire. Second, we conducted onsite surveys within each firm. We gave each participant the researcher’s name card and a gift, and expressed our confidential commitments to each participant. We gave each participant an instruction letter demonstrating clearly that the answers are neither right nor wrong; the most appropriate answers are intuited at a glance. The deliberate arrangement, confidential commitments, and clear instructions may attenuate the common method bias problem. Third, we did exploratory factor analysis to detect the influence of Harman’s single factor. Result showed that the first factor without rotation accounted for only 25.47% of cumulative 63.00% variance (four factors in the regression analysis: group-focused transformational leadership, individual-focused transformational leadership, relationship conflict, and information elaboration). Fourth, with our complex double-moderated-mediation test, a common method explanation is unlikely. Researchers have demonstrated clearly that common method bias is not a viable explanation for higher-order effects that confirm predicted patterns (Evans, 1985; Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), such as in our case. Analyses In this study, the final sample comprises 100 teams from 32 firms. Teams in the same organizations are interdependent, which violates the independent assumption of traditional ordinary least squares regression and causes biased parameter estimators. Therefore, we use clustered regression with a White-correction parameter estimation that allows covariance between individuals within groups and corrects for heteroscedasticity across groups (Rogers, 1993). Because our 100 teams were nested within 32 organizations, within six industries, and within four regions, we considered two 3-level models that partitioned variance into team, organization, and industry or region component. Null model analyses revealed that neither the estimate of betweenindustry variance (ICC(1) = .02, p = .57) nor of between-region variance (ICC(1) = .03, p = 0.21) in comparison to total variance was significant. Thus, we clustered only on organization in the primary analyses.

412

Cai Y. et al.

Table 1 Team-level descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among measures Variables

Mean SD

1. Team average age

2.52

2. Team female percentage

.28

3. Team average education level

3.78

4. Team size

9.36

5. GFTL

5.09

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.94 .26 −.13 .89 −.39** −.03

5.64

.15

.40 −.18

.16 −.20 −.10

.13

−.15

.15

.07

.04

.08 −.05

.25*

−.56**

7. Team relationship conflict

1.57

.44

.10

.06 −.29**

.00

−.30**

8. Team information elaboration

4.84

.51 −.11

−.18

.10

−.27**

.63** −.39** −.37**

9. Team middle-way thinking

5.07

.28 −.11

−.10

.12

−.26**

.59** −.26** −.18

6. DIFTL

8

.17

.63**

N = 100; * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed); GFTL Group-focused transformational leadership; DIFTL Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership

Results Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the study variables. Table 2 shows the clustered regression results. As Model 2 of Table 2 shows, groupfocused transformational leadership was negatively related to team relationship conflict (β = −.30, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. As Model 3 shows, differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership was positively related to team relationship conflict (β = .97, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. As Model 5 shows, team relationship conflict was negatively related to team information elaboration (β = −.44, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Hypotheses 4a and 4b propose two indirect effects. We employed the product of coefficient approach, which enables us to directly test the indirect effect, and to balance between type І error and type II error (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002). We used the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007) to conduct product of coefficients test. The indirect effect of groupfocused transformational leadership on information elaboration transmitted through relationship conflict was significant (95% confidence interval [CI] = [.05, .24], not containing zero). Thus, Hypothesis 4a was supported. The indirect effect of differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership on information elaboration transmitted through relationship conflict was significant (95% confidence interval [CI] = [−.82, −.13], not containing zero). Thus, Hypothesis 4b was supported. Hypothesis 5 proposed the interactive effect of team middle-way thinking and relationship conflict on team information elaboration. We mean-centered the two variables to alleviate multicollinearity concern (Aiken & West, 1991). As Model 10 of Table 2 shows, the interactive effect was significant (β = .81, p < .05). Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported. To facilitate the interpretation of interactive effect, we plotted the interactive effect using

.44

.20

.03*

.13**

.34**

.10**

.38**

.20**

.30

−.39**

−.35**

.42**

.50**

.59

.83*

.64**

−.27**

−.34

.39**

−.07**

−.04

−.05† −.07**

−.04

−.05†

−.02

4.86**

Model 11

p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01 (2-tailed test). Listwise N = 100. The entries are unstandardized coefficients; GFTL Group-focused transformational leadership; DIFTL Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership

†

.08**

.48

−.26**

−1.91**

−.09*

−.04

−.06

4.86** −.03

.52

R2 Change

.23

−2.28**

−.09**

−.07†

.68**

−.04

.01

−.04

4.84** −.04

Model 10

R2 .10

.76**

−.08**

−.00

−.07†

4.84** −.00

Model 9

.81*

−.44**

−.13**

−.05

−.05

4.84** −.04

Model 8

Team relationship conflict × Team middle-way thinking .12

−.11*

.01

−.07

−.08†

.00

4.84**

Model 7

.95**

.17

.97**

−.05

−.13**

.03

4.84** −.04

4.84** −.04

Model 6

Team middle-way thinking

Team relationship conflict

DIFTL

.09

−.04

−.03

Team size

−.30**

−.13**

−.13**

Team average education level

GFTL

.02

.03

.00

Team female percentage

1.57**

1.57**

.00

−.02

1.57**

Team average age

Model 5

Model 4

Model 3

Model 1

Model 2

Team information elaboration

Team relationship conflict

Intercept

Variables

Table 2 Clustered regression results

Dual-level transformational leadership and team information... 413

414

Cai Y. et al.

Simple slope=.46, p=.1371

Simple slope=-1.16, p=.0008

RC Relationship conflict

Fig. 2 Team middle-way thinking moderates the relationship between relationship conflict and information elaboration.

standardized procedure (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 2 illustrates that while relationship conflict was significantly and negatively related to information elaboration (simple slope = −1.16, p < .01) for low level of team middle-way thinking (−1 SD), the relationship did not significantly depart from zero (simple slope = .46, p = .13) for high level (+ 1 SD). Hypotheses 6 and 7 proposed two overarching moderated mediation models. We applied Edwards and Lambert’s (2007) moderated path analysis approach to estimate three effects at the high and low levels of the team middle-way thinking: second-stage effect (the effect of relationship conflict on information elaboration); direct effect (the effect of transformational leadership on information elaboration); and overall indirect effect (the effect of transformational leadership on information elaboration transmitted through relationship conflict). We estimated coefficients from 2000 bootstrap samples with replacement from the full sample. Bias-corrected confidence intervals, computed from the 2000 bootstrap estimates with adjusted formulas, were used to test differences in indirect and total effects across levels of the moderator variable (Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Hypothesis 6 proposed that team middle-way thinking moderates the indirect effect of group-focused transformational leadership on information elaboration transmitted through relationship conflict. The indirect effect was significant for low team middle-way thinking (β = .16, p < .01), and was nonsignificant for high team middle-way thinking (β = .01, n.s). The difference between the indirect effect slope of high and low was also significant (β = −.15, p < .05). Taken together, Hypothesis 6 was supported. Hypothesis 7 proposed that team middle-way thinking moderates the indirect effect of differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership on information elaboration transmitted through relationship conflict. The indirect effect was significant for low team middle-way thinking (β = −.53, p < .10), and nonsignificant for high team middle-way thinking (β = −.09, n.s). The difference between the indirect effect slope of high and low was also significant (β = −.44, p < .10). Thus, Hypothesis 7 was supported.


415

Discussion As workplaces increasingly adopt teamwork strategies, transformational leaders are often recognized as essential for their impacts on team effectiveness. The dual-level model of transformational leadership explains that transformational team leaders may take a groupfocused approach and treat teams as a whole, or they may focus on individuals and treat team members differently (Kark & Shamir, 2002). We depart from the focus on motivational or behavioral perspectives and adopt a relational perspective linking dual-level transformational leadership with team information elaboration and considering team relationship conflict as a relational mediator. Furthermore, we argue that a Chinese-specific cultural characteristic—middle-way thinking—is a relational moderator that counterbalances the detrimental effects of relationship conflict on within-team information elaboration. Our study of 100 teams from 32 high-technology firms in China shows that groupfocused transformational leadership reduces team relationship conflict and thus is positively associated with within-team information elaboration. In contrast, differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership causes team relationship conflict and thus is negatively related to within-team information elaboration. In addition, when team members are low in middle-way thinking, both indirect effects are stronger. When team members are high in middle-way thinking, the effects are weaker. The findings confirm our hypotheses and generate useful theoretical and managerial implications. Theoretical implications In this study, we contribute to social categorization theory by taking a relatively new relational perspective for investigating dual-level transformational leadership. As a heuristic to evaluate our theoretical contributions, we use Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan’s (2007) twodimension taxonomy encapsulating theory testing and theory building. By rooting our hypotheses deeply in social categorization theory, we reach the highest dimension of theory-testing in the taxonomy. Theory testing captures Bthe degree to which existing theory is applied in an empirical study as a means of grounding a specific set of a priori hypotheses^ (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007: 1284). We draw from the self-conceptbased theory of leadership and borrow from social categorization theory for our mediating and moderating effects. Theory building captures Bthe degree to which an empirical article clarifies or supplements existing theory or introduces relationships and constructs that serve as the foundations for new theory^ (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007: 1284). As mentioned, under social categorization theory, we introduce team relationship conflict as a relational mediator that links dual-level transformational leadership with team information elaboration. Westerners tend to prefer categorical grouping based on underlying properties, while Chinese tend to prefer relational grouping based on contextual and relational details (Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010). Thus, in Chinese work teams, relationship conflict is a nuanced mechanism to calibrate social categorization process. We also contribute to indigenous Chinese management research (Jia, You, & Du, 2012) by introducing middle-way thinking as a Chinese context-specific moderator to understand how Chinese work teams handle relationship conflict. Western ontology emphasizes the law of identity in which everything must be identical with itself; the law of noncontradiction in which statements cannot be both true and false; and the law of the excluded middle in which statements are either true or false and the middle ground holds no merit (Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010;

416

Cai Y. et al.

Peng & Nisbett, 1999). In contrast, middle-way thinking, also called Zhong Yong or the doctrine of the mean, is Bthe backbone of the Confucian framework^ widely considered the highest ideal in Confucianism (Ji, Lee, & Guo, 2010: 158), and includes three fundamental principles: change, contradiction, and holism. The principle of change holds that Bexistence is not static but rather dynamic and changeable^; the principle of contradiction holds that Breality is not precise or cut-and-dried but is full of contradictions^ and thus existence is relative duality; and the principle of holism holds that Bnothing is isolated and independent, but everything is connected^ (Peng & Nisbett, 1999: 743). These fundamental differences in ontology and epistemology between Chinese and the Western thinking styles lead to substantially different management approaches to relationship conflict. Practical implications Our findings provide suggestions for companies and team leaders who wish to enhance team information elaboration. First, we advise team leaders to pay special attention to differentiated leadership behaviors that may have unintended consequences. We are not suggesting that team leaders should treat each team member exactly the same. In reality, considering that leaders have limited time and energy, they often inevitably treat subordinates differently, but they should be aware that individual-focused transformational leadership can cause relationship conflicts and dampen team information elaboration. To temper or even reverse dysfunctional consequences, team leaders should proactively reduce relationship conflict, perhaps through group-focused transformational leadership. Second, our findings that group-focused transformational leadership can reduce team relationship conflict and thus spur team information elaboration indicate that organizations should design human resource policies that encourage team leaders to use group-focused leadership. Given the research finding that leadership can trickle down from high level to low level (Bass, Waldman, Avolio, & Bebb, 1987), a social learning process of differentiated leadership is possible. Thus, we strongly encourage top executives also try to prevent differentiated leadership whenever possible. Third, given the robust research findings that transformational leadership is trainable (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002), we suggest that organizations provide regular training programs, teaching team leaders to use more group-focused leadership behaviors. Fourth, our findings that middle-way thinking can moderate the negative effects of relationship conflict on information elaboration indicate that organizations should seek middle-way thinkers for teams that rely heavily on information elaboration. Limitations and future research directions Several limitations should be considered in evaluating our results. First, our study is cross-sectional and data were collected from one source, team members, making solid causal inferences indecisive. For example, teams that engage in more information elaboration may eventually reduce their relationship conflict. Additional studies should confirm the relationships across time using time-lagged, experimental, and multisource data to establish solid causality. Second, we include within-team information elaboration—a team process variable, so our results fail to speak directly to the relationship between dual-level transformational leadership and team outputs. Although information elaboration has been positively associated with


417

many critical team outcomes such as performance (Kearney & Gebert, 2009) and creativity (Hoever et al., 2012), future research could directly detect the effect of dual-level transformational leadership on specific team outcomes to gain more complete understandings. Third, our relational perspective and the current conflict management literature guided us toward middle-way thinking, a Chinese culture-specific variable, as a team-level moderator between relationship conflict and information elaboration. However, we failed to measure conflict management approach, the key logic to support middle-way thinking as a moderator. Future research could directly examine whether high middle-way thinking teams are more likely to develop cooperative conflict management, whether low middle-way thinking teams are more likely to use competitive conflict management, and whether conflict management approaches moderate the relationship between team relationship conflict and team information elaboration. Fourth, considering that we identify Chinese middle-way thinking as a context-specific thinking-style variable, additional cross-cultural comparison studies are needed to confirm whether it is context-specific or context-free (Tsui, 2006) or whether it moderates conflict across different cultural backgrounds (Leung et al., 2011). In addition, along with middleway thinking, other Chinese culture-specific variables such as traditionality have great potential in studying relationship conflict management in the Chinese context.

Conclusion In analyzing transformational leadership, we must ask Bwhether leaders should or should not differentiate among their members^ (Sparrowe & Liden, 1997: 545). From the viewpoint of individual-level situational leadership theories, individual-focused transformational leadership theory, and LMX theory, the answer may be definitively affirmative. At the group level, however, the answer depends on the overall level of team members’ middle-way thinking. When transformational leaders focus on the group, they may reduce team conflict and enhance within-team elaboration. In contrast, when team leaders pay exclusive attention to a few team members, they may breed social categorization and relationship conflict, which consequently suppresses within-team information elaboration. Moreover, team middle-way thinking could significantly ameliorate negative effects that relationship conflict has on information elaboration and thus weaken the indirect effect among dual-level transformational leadership, team relationship conflict, and team information elaboration. Acknowledgments We thank Alfred Wong (Senior Editor) and two anonymous reviewers for constructive feedbacks. This research was supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC 71272109; 71332002; 71502094; 71632005) and by Program for Innovative Research Team of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. C. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage. Allison, P. D. 1978. Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43(6): 865–880. Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

418

Cai Y. et al.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1995. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research: Permission set. Redwood City: Mindgarden. Bass, B. M., Waldman, D. A., Avolio, B. J., & Bebb, M. 1987. Transformational leadership and the falling dominoes effect. Group and Organization Studies, 12(1): 73–87. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. 2008. The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1): 170–188. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. 2009. Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2): 445–464. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions: 349–381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. M. B. 2000. Relationality in organizational research: Exploring the Bspace between^. Organization Science, 11(5): 551–564. Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. 1998. Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 4(4): 410–424. Brislin, R., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. 1973. Cross-cultural research methods. New York: Wiley. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domains at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1): 234–246. Chan, W. T. 1963. A source book in Chinese philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University. Chang, S., Jia, L. D., Takeuchi, R., & Cai, Y. 2014. Do high commitment work systems promote employee creativity? A combinational approach to employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(4): 665– 680. Chen, G., Liu, C. H., & Tjosvold, D. 2005. Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2): 277–300. Chen, G., Mathieu, J. E., & Bliese, P. D. 2004. A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.). Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizational behavior and processes: 273–303. Oxford: Elsevier. Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. 2011a. Motivating and de-motivating forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3): 541–557. Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. 2002. Conflict management and team effectiveness in China: The mediating role of justice. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(4): 557–572. Chen, Y. F., Tjosvold, D., Huang, X., & Xu, D. 2011b. New manager socialization and conflict management in China: Effects of relationship and open conflict values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2): 332– 356. Chen, T., Leung, K., Li, F., & Ou, Z. 2015. Interpersonal harmony and creativity in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5): 648–672. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. 2002. Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55(1): 83–109. Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2007. Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1281–1303. Dansereau, F., Alutto, J., & Yammarino, F. 1984. Theory testing in organizational behavior: The variant approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. 2001. A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(6): 645–668. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team effectiveness, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 741–749. de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. 2012. The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2): 360–390. Deutsch, M. 1973. The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4): 735–744. Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1): 1–22. Evan, W. 1965. Conflict and performance in R&D organizations. Industrial Management Review, 7(1): 37–46.


419

Evans, M. G. 1985. A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36(3): 305–323. Fiedler, F. E. 1967. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. 1967. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4): 1199–1228. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface and deep-level diversity on work group decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 96– 107. Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. 2012. Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5): 982– 996. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 121–140. James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1): 85–98. Jehn, K. A., & Bezrukova, K. 2010. The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1): 24–42. 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(2): 238–251. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. What differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4): 741–763. Ji, L.-J., Lee, A., & Guo, T. 2010. The thinking styles of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.). The handbook of Chinese psychology: 155–168. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Jia, L. D., Shaw, J. D., Tsui, A. S., & Park, T.-Y. 2014. A social-structural perspective on employeeorganization relationships and team creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3): 869–891. Jia, L. D., You, S. Y., & Du, Y. Z. 2012. Chinese context and theoretical contributions to management and organization research: A three-decade review. Management and Organization Review, 8(1): 173–209. Jia, W. 2008. Chinese perspective on harmony: An evaluation of the harmony and the peace paradigms. Chinese Media Research, 4(1): 25–30. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior: 79–94. Morristown: General Learning Press. Kark, R., & Shamir, B. 2002. The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational and collective selves and further effects on followers. In B. J. Avolio & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead: 67–91. Amsterdam: JAI Press. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley. Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. 2009. Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1): 77–89. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3): 581–598. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3): 211–236. Leung, K., Brew, F. P., Zhang, Z. X., & Zhang, Y. 2011. Harmony and conflict: A cross-cultural investigation in China and Australia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5): 795–816. Leung, K., Koch, P. T., & Lu, L. 2002. A dualistic model of harmony and its implications for conflict management in Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(2): 201–220. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2): 395–404. Liu, W., & Friedman, R. 2012. Managing conflicts in Chinese societies. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.). The handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research, and practice: 272–288. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Feiberg, S. J. 1999. Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3): 167–203. Lun, V. M. 2012. Harmonizing conflicting views about harmony in Chinese culture. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.). The handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research, and practice: 467–479. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

420

Cai Y. et al.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M, S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. 2007. Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3): 384–389. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1): 83–104. Milkovich, G. T. 1987. Compensation systems in high technology companies. In D. B. Balkin & L. R. Gomez-Mejia (Eds.). New perspectives on compensation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. 1999. Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9): 741–754. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5): 879–903. Rogers, W. H. 1993. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13(1): 19–23. Schriesheim, C. A., Wu, J. B., & Scandura, T. A. 2009. A meso measure? Examination of the levels of analysis of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Leadership Quarterly, 20(4): 604–616. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A selfconcept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4): 577–594. Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. 2010. Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3): 456–476. Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22(2): 522–552. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 501–524. Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. 2006. Conflict in Chinese teams: Conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2(2): 231–252. Tsui, A. S. 2006. Contextualization in Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 2(1): 1–13. Tsui, A. S. 2012. Contextualizing research in a modernizing China. In X. Huang & M. H. Bond (Eds.). The handbook of Chinese organizational behavior: Integrating theory, research, and practice: 29–47. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. 1999. Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lanham: Lexington Books. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S., & Ou, Y. 2007. Cross-national cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33(3): 426–478. Turner, J. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A social categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4): 349–361. van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. 2009. Knowledge about the distribution of information and group decision making: When and why does it work?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2): 218–229. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6): 1008– 1022. van Knippenberg, D., & Sitkin, S. B. 2013. A critical assessment of charismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 1–60. Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. 2010. Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6): 1134–1144. Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. 2012. A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5): 775–790. Wang, J., Leung, K., & Zhou, F. 2014. A dispositional approach to psychological climate: Relationships between interpersonal harmony motives and psychological climate for communication safety. Human Relations, 67(4): 489–515. Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Wong, A., Wei, L., & Tjosvold, D. 2014. Business and regulators partnerships: Government transformational leadership for constructive conflict management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(2): 497–522. Wu, J. H., & Lin, Y. Z. 2005. Development of a Zhong-yong thinking style scale. Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies, 24(1): 247–300. Wu, J. B., Tsui, A. S., & Kinicki, A. J. 2010. Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 90–106.


421

Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. 2007. Procedural justice climate and group power distance: An examination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3): 681–692. Zhang, X. A., Li, N., Ullrich, J., & van Dick, R. 2015. Getting everyone on board: The effect of executive differentiated transformational leadership on top management team effectiveness and subsidiary firm performance. Journal of Management, 41(7): 1898–1933. Yahua Cai (PhD, Nanjing University) is an Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. He earned his PhD at Nanjing University. His research focuses on organizational behavior, team dynamics, leadership, and creativity. He has published research articles in the Journal of Applied Psychology and leading Chinese academic journals. Liangding Jia (PhD, Nanjing University) is a Professor of Management at the School of Management, Nanjing University. He earned his PhD at Nanjing University. His research interests include the antecedents and consequences of employment relationships, CEO values and organizational culture, top management teams and firm strategy, and the structure and growth of township enterprise clusters. He has published research articles in the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Human Resource Management, and Management and Organizational Review. Juexing Li is a PhD student at the School of Management, Nanjing University. Her research focuses on organizational behavior, employment relationship, and team dynamics. She has published several articles in leading Chinese academic journals.