Printer Friendly

Leaders' sense of power and team performance: a moderated mediation model.

Researchers of leader power, which has traditionally been viewed as a structural construct, have typically focused on hierarchical status and position in the social network (Tost, 2015). However, researchers have begun to consider leader power as a psychological state, namely, sense of power (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Sense of power derives from individuals feeling that they have the ability to influence the outcomes and experiences of others (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Anderson et al. (2012) showed that sense of power has a trait-like stable nature, and personal sense of power is moderately consistent across relationships. For example, individuals' beliefs about their power vis-a-vis friends are consistent with their beliefs about power vis-a-vis their work supervisor. Accordingly, in this study, leaders' sense of power is defined as a trait-like state, which refers to leaders' perception of their power and influence vis-a-vis subordinates in the workplace.

Sense of power predicts the cognition, emotion, and behavior of the power holder (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). This statement sheds light on the psychological process by which power can affect team process and performance, about which little research has been conducted within an organizational context. Whether or not leaders' sense of power can improve team performance remains controversial (Williams, 2014).

Results in regard to sense of power are mixed. This may be because the majority of relevant studies have been conducted in a general social context, and hypotheses have been tested by observing interactions between independent individuals (i.e., strangers) in laboratories (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). In the organizational context, a strong interest interdependence exists between power holders (i.e., leaders) and their counterparts (i.e., subordinates), whereas interest interdependence between strangers is weak in the social context (Lin, 2014). Therefore, as interactions in an organizational context differ significantly from those in a social context, results obtained in different contexts are not necessarily consistent. Thus, the question of sense of power in an organizational context and its effectiveness in improving team performance, needs to be investigated to resolve current debate (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015).

Because researchers usually explain the effect of leaders' sense of power by showing the action or goal orientation of the power holder (Willis & Guinote, 2011), the mechanism of sense of power from a relationship conflict perspective should be demonstrated. Sense of power influences the social attention, social cognition, and social behavior of the power holder, and is an important influence on social interactions (Tost, 2015). Leader-member relationship conflict refers to the quality of social interactions between leaders and subordinates (Ilies, Johnson, Judge, & Keeney, 2011), and thus can reflect the effect of sense of power in team leaders' social interactions. Previous researchers have recognized the relationship between power-related constructs and conflict, such as between power dispersion and conflict resolution (Greer & van Kleef, 2010). However, few have examined the relationship between the psychological effect of power and the conflict level, and the role of conflict in linking power to team performance.

Furthermore, even though some researchers have indicated that task characteristics can influence the effectiveness of leaders' sense of power (Tost et al., 2013), this hypothesis needs to be empirically tested. Task interdependence is a key factor defining work pattern, information flow, and communication style in the workplace (Lin, 2014). At the group level, task interdependence is considered a characteristic of the team as a whole (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). At the individual level, it is considered a characteristic of individual job incumbents (Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012). In this study, we focused on leaders' perceived task interdependence. When leaders perceive this to be high, they feel it necessary to rely on team members to achieve goals (Lin, 2014). As a result, the importance of the leader-member relationship is enhanced. It may be expected that team leaders with a high sense of power would pay more attention to the leader-member relationship in cases of high-perceived task interdependence than they would in cases of low-perceived task interdependence. It is therefore necessary to test the joint effect of leaders' sense of power and perceived task interdependence on leader-member relationship conflict.

Thus, we explored the influence of leaders' sense of power on team performance in an organizational context. Previous findings have revealed that power holders tend to have high performance because they are action- or goal-oriented (Willis & Guinote, 2011). However, we aimed to show that leader--member relationship conflict plays a key role in linking leaders' sense of power with team performance. We also aimed to integrate research on power and job design by identifying synergies between sense of power and perceived task interdependence. This could help explain the boundary conditions of the effect of sense of power.

Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

Leaders' Sense of Power and Team Performance

We proposed, on the basis of the Approach and Inhibition Theory (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson (2003), that leaders' sense of power would be positively related to team performance, because leaders with a high sense of power are more goal-oriented and will use any available resource to lead the team toward achieving team goals (Willis & Guinote, 2011). Compared with leaders with a low sense of power, they exhibit more self-sacrificing behavior to achieve organizational goals (Hoogervorst, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2012).

Leaders with a high sense of power take more opportunities and are more sensitive to goal-related information and approaches than are those with a low sense of power, enabling the team to achieve higher performance. They attend to goal-related information more than to goal-irrelevant information (Slabu & Guinote, 2010). This implies that sense of power can change individuals' cognition. When leading a team toward group goals, leaders with a high sense of power are more likely to help team members disentangle clues, point out feasible methods and paths, and offer constructive guidance, thus improving team performance (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015).

Leaders with a high sense of power exhibit more self-controlled behavior to achieve goals than do leaders with a low sense of power. DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, and Vohs (2011) reported that when performing independent tasks, leaders with a high sense of power showed more self-control to achieve targets than did leaders with a low sense of power. Leaders' self-controlled behavior will act as an example to team members and help them to regulate their behavior and to progress toward achieving targets, thus ensuring the high performance of the team. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Leaders' sense of power will have a positive effect on team performance.

Mediating Role of Leader-Member Relationship Conflict at the Team Level

Leader-member relationship conflict refers to interpersonal disharmony, tension, and friction that can occur during the interaction between a leader and team members (Way, Jimmieson, & Bordia, 2016). We believe that, in an organizational context, leaders with a high sense of power will seek to avoid conflict with team members to achieve team goals and to improve team performance. In other words, we believe that leader-member relationship conflict at the team level will mediate the relationship between team leaders' sense of power and team performance.

Leaders' sense of power is based on their social connections with, and their influence on, team members. This encourages them to regulate interpersonal behavior and decrease relationship conflict with team members (F. Lee & Tiedens, 2001). Many theorists have treated power as a social relational concept and defined sense of power as individuals' perception of their ability to influence others (Anderson et al., 2012). This influence is strongly embedded in, and connected to, the leader's relationship with team members. To retain power, the power holder must maintain connections and fair interpersonal interactions with team members. As a result, powerful leaders will carefully control their social behavior and pay attention to their relationships with team members. For instance, sense of power motivates reestablishing interpersonal connections following social exclusion (Narayanan, Tai, & Kinias, 2013). Therefore, high performance would be triggered by less intense leader-member relationship conflict.

Compared with those with a low sense of power, leaders with a high sense of power pay more attention to social interactions and interpersonal skills, because building a favorable relationship with team members is an effective way to achieve team goals. Power holders in an organization need to comply with their role and behave as required by the organization. Otherwise, subordinates and superiors will lose trust in them (Hoogervorst et al., 2012). Leaders with a high sense of power usually behave in a manner consistent with group goals (Maner & Mead, 2010). For example, in an experiment, when a task required participants to pay more attention to interpersonal relationships, those with a high sense of power differentiated between counterparts by remembering personal characteristics rather than accumulating stereotyped impressions. Thus, individuals with a high sense of power performed better in these tasks than did those with a low sense of power (Overbeck & Park, 2006). In other words, social attention is similar to other resources such as human and financial capital, and is a way for power holders to achieve goals and enhance team performance.

Leaders with a high sense of power perceive and express more positive emotions than do leaders with a low sense of power (Keltner et al., 2003; Sturm & Antonakis, 2015), leading to less interpersonal conflict and better team performance. In another experiment, participants with a high sense of power were more sensitive to rewards (i.e., their experiment partners liking them), whereas those with a low sense of power were more sensitive to threats (i.e., their experiment partners feeling anger toward them; Anderson & Berdahl, 2002).

Leaders' positive emotions are closely related to a favorable leader-member relationship and contribute to high team performance (Wang & Seibert, 2015). In contrast, negative emotions hinder the quality of social interactions (Chepenik, Cornew, & Farah, 2007). It can thus be proposed that sense of power will increase leaders' positive emotions and reduce their negative emotions, and improve their social sensitivity and interpersonal skills, hence reducing conflict with team members. Leader-member relationship conflict is related to the degree of satisfaction and organizational commitment of team members, with less conflict being essential for improvement of team performance (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Leader-member relationship conflict at the team level will mediate the relationship between leaders' sense of power and team performance.

Moderating Role of Perceived Task Interdependence

Perceived task interdependence is the extent to which individuals believe that they rely on skills and information from others when performing a task (Shin et al., 2012). The extent to which leaders perceive they have to depend on followers to accomplish a goal could affect the importance of the leader-member relationship. We believed that team leaders with a high sense of power would pay more attention to leader-member relationships in cases of high-perceived task interdependence than they would in cases of low-perceived task interdependence.

Task interdependence underpins cooperation and stresses common goals (Lin, 2014), and thus reduces the incidence of conflict. Sense of power enhances the leader's goal orientation, which could be prosocial or self-interested. Controversial results have been generated by previous researchers' attempts to determine how behavior is influenced by sense of power (Williams, 2014). For instance, some researchers found that as power corrupts, leaders with a high sense of power tend to subordinate the interests of others (Blader & Chen, 2012). Yet other findings revealed that sense of power leads to interpersonal sensitivity (Schmid Mast, Jonas, & Hall, 2009), implying that sense of power may lead to other-oriented behavior. Lau and Cobb (2010) noted that a common goal promoted cooperation and strengthened interpersonal ties, thus reducing relationship conflict. As task interdependence promotes common goals (Lin, 2014), we proposed that it would strengthen the negative effect of leaders' sense of power on relationship conflict.

In highly interdependent tasks, the leader should rely on team members to achieve goals, rather than working alone, thereby paying more attention to team members. Whether or not sense of power helps or hurts perspective taking depends on the extent to which the focal individual is self-focused or other-focused (Gordon & Chen, 2013). Thinking from the viewpoint of others can enhance the ability of an individual with a high sense of power to show empathy toward others, thus helping to resolve conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2013). K. Lee (2008) also found that an obliging conflict management style, in which the leader put aside self-interest out of concern for others, was positively related to conflict resolution and subordinate satisfaction.

When performing highly interdependent tasks, the leader and team members need to cooperate closely (Lin, 2014). Otherwise, relationship conflict will have a significant impact on goal achievement and group performance. A high sense of power can prompt the leader to fulfill duties and requirements with more care and attention. Therefore, when the level of task interdependence is perceived to be high, leaders with a high sense of power will pay more attention to building a favorable and harmonious leader-member relationship. As a result, there is a strong negative relationship between sense of power and relationship conflict in cases of high-perceived task interdependence. In contrast, when the level of task interdependence is perceived to be low, interpersonal relationships play a less important role in achieving team goals. As such, a leader with a high sense of power would pay less attention to the construction of interpersonal relationships, resulting in a weak negative relationship between sense of power and relationship conflict. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Perceived task interdependence will moderate the relationship between leaders' sense of power and leader-member relationship conflict at the team level, such that the negative effect of leaders' sense of power on relationship conflict will be stronger in cases of high-perceived task interdependence than in cases of low-perceived task interdependence.

We further believed that the mediating effect of team-level leader-member relationship conflict would also be moderated by perceived task interdependence, as a moderated mediation effect. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: When perceived task interdependence is high, relationship conflict will play a strong mediating role in the link between leaders' sense of power and team performance, whereas when perceived task interdependence is low, relationship conflict will play a weak mediating role.

These hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were from a large company in south China. With the assistance of the human resources manager, we distributed paper and pencil surveys to all 78 team leaders, 42 senior managers responsible for directing the team leaders, and 403 team members (the team leaders' subordinates), who voluntarily participated in the survey. Completed questionnaires were received from 369 team members, 75 team leaders, and 42 senior managers, yielding an initial response rate of 91.56%, 96.15%, and 100%, respectively. Five teams were excluded because they had fewer than three members. In the final sample, of the 364 team members, 63.3% were women aged between 20 and 58 years, of the 70 team leaders, 62.9% were women aged between 25 and 59 years, and of the 42 senior managers, 21% were women aged between 32 and 59 years. The teams had diverse functions, which included marketing, finance, research and development, general management, and manufacturing. A two-wave data collection approach was used, whereby the second data collection (Time 2) was completed six months after the first data collection (Time 1).

Measures

Senior managers evaluated team performance, team leaders reported sense of power and task interdependence, and team members reported on leader-member relationship conflict. Team performance, sense of power, and task interdependence were reported using items scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Leader-member relationship conflict was reported using items scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sense of power, task interdependence, and leader-member relationship conflict were evaluated at Time 1 and team performance was evaluated at Time 2.

Sense of power. Sense of power was evaluated using the six highest loading items from Anderson et al.'s (2012) eight-item measurement. A sample item is "In my team, I can get team members to do what I want." Cronbach's alph[alpha] = .70.

Leader-member relationship conflict. The four-item scale used to evaluate leader-member relationship conflict was adapted from Jehn's (1995) scale. A sample item is "There are a lot of personality conflicts between the team leader and me." Cronbach's alph[alpha] = .88. Within-group agreement indicated sufficient homogeneity of within-group responses ([R.sub.wg] = .80). Intraclass correlations (ICC) were statistically significant, ICC(1) = .07 and ICC(2) = .30,p < .05. Aggregation of individual responses to create a team-level variable was thus justified.

Perceived task interdependence. The four-item scale that we used to evaluate perceived task interdependence was adapted from Van der Vegt and Janssen's (2003) questionnaire. A sample item is "I need to collaborate with team members to perform my job well." Cronbach's alph[alpha] = .75.

Team performance. Team performance was assessed using Ancona and Caldwell's (1992) six-item scale. A sample item is "This team is very efficient." Cronbach's alph[alpha] = .71.

Control variables. Structural power was controlled, as it is related to sense of power and team performance (Tost, 2015). We used hierarchical status to measure structural power, based on Anderson, Spataro, and Flynn's (2008) study. All team leaders were asked to indicate their hierarchical status as one of four levels: nonmanagement, line management, middle management, or senior/ executive management. Team size and the demographic characteristics (gender, age, and education background) of team leaders were also included as control variables as they could influence team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Hoogervorst et al., 2012).

Results

The results of the descriptive analysis are shown in Table 1. The team leader's sense of power was positively related to team performance (r = .32, p < .01), and team-level leader-member relationship conflict was negatively related to team performance (r = -.40, p < .01). The relationship between the team leader's sense of power and hierarchical status was significantly positive (r = .24, p < .05), but the magnitude of the correlation was low, indicating that they are different constructs.

When the team leader's sense of power was not included, there was no significant effect of hierarchical status on team performance (Table 2, M2; b = .01, p = .97), and no significant effect of other control variables. When sense of power was included, it was positively related to team performance (Table 2, M3; b = .37, p < .01), but there was no significant effect of other control variables. Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported.

Sense of power was negatively related to team-level leader-member relationship conflict (Table 2, M8; b = -.16, p < .01). When team-level leader-member relationship conflict was included in the model to predict team performance, it was negatively related to team performance (Table 2, M4; b = -.68, p < .01), and sense of power still had a significant positive effect on team performance (Table 2, M4; b = .26, p < .05). In addition, the leader-member relationship conflict made a significant contribution to the model ([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .10, p < .01). The unstandardized indirect effect (ab) and confidence intervals (CI) were obtained by bias corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrapping. Results showed that the indirect effect was positive and significant, ab = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.26]. Thus, team-level leader-member relationship conflict partially mediated the relationship between sense of power and team performance. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported. Hierarchical status did not significantly predict leader-member relationship conflict (Table 2, M8; b = .05, p = .54). When hierarchical status was controlled, sense of power still had a significant positive effect on relationship conflict, indicating that psychological sense of power had incremental validity beyond structural power.

The interaction of sense of power and perceived task interdependence had a significant effect on team-level leader-member relationship conflict (Table 2, M10; b = -.21, p < .01), and the magnitude of R2 change was significant ([DELTA][R.sup.2] = .10, p < .01). As shown in Figure 2, the negative effect of sense of power on team-level leader-member relationship conflict was weak and not significant when perceived task interdependence was low (slope = -0.05, p = .52), but was strong and significant when perceived task interdependence was high (slope = -0.32, p < .001). Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.

We used Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes' (2007) method to calculate the point estimate and bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) CI for the moderated mediation effect. The bootstrap results showed that the indirect effect of sense of power on team performance mediated by team-level leader-member relationship conflict was positive and significant, ab = 0.16, 95% BCa CI = [0.04, 0.42], when perceived task interdependence was high, but was not significant, ab = 0.02, 95% BCa CI = [-0.09, 0.18], when perceived task interdependence was low. Hypothesis 4 was thus supported.

Discussion

In this study, we showed that team leaders' sense of power had a positive effect on team performance, that team-level leader-member relationship conflict mediated the effect of sense of power on team performance, that perceived task interdependence moderated the relationship between sense of power and leader-member relationship conflict (whereby the negative relationship was stronger when perceived task interdependence was high), and that perceived task interdependence moderated the mediating effect of relationship conflict on the relationship between sense of power and team performance.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings contribute to the power literature in a number of ways. First, we provided evidence of the effect of sense of power on team performance. There are mixed results in regard to the effect of sense of power on emotion, cognition, and behavior (Hoogervorst et al., 2012; Tost et al., 2013). As most previous studies have been conducted in a general social context with independent individuals (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015), their results may not be directly applicable to sense of power in an organizational context. In the latter context, team members have a common goal and close relationship, and as a result, leaders with a high sense of power are motivated to serve the organizational interest. The connection between leader and employees would be expected to strengthen the positive effect of the leader's sense of power and to weaken its negative effect. Researchers have also investigated wider aspects of power, such as the subjective sense of power and role- or structure-based power. We found that the team leaders' sense of power was positively related to team performance, and the effect of structural power was not salient. Thus, our findings differentiate between structural and psychological aspects of power. In sum, by emphasizing the managerial context, we demonstrated the incremental validity of leaders' sense of power beyond structural power in organizations.

Second, we have responded to the call for more research on the mechanisms that explain the effect of sense of power (Keltner et al., 2003). Although researchers have identified the important effect of sense of power on power holders' social behavior (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002), to our knowledge, no one has used relationship conflict to explain the power-performance relationship. In this study, as we showed that leader-member relationship conflict links leaders' sense of power to team performance, we have provided a new perspective on the power-performance relationship. Our results also indicate a novel link between psychological power and conflict level. We showed that sense of power affects leader-member interaction and impacts on relationship conflict. We propose that subjective sense of power is not necessarily related to reward and punishment, but is a kind of trait-like psychological state. A high sense of power can stimulate a leader's goal-oriented behavior and positive emotions, and help build positive leader-member relationships (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015).

Third, we showed that perceived task interdependence was a conditional factor that influenced the relationship between sense of power and relationship conflict. Sense of power affected the behavior of power holders through multiple paths, of which some led to positive outcomes and others to negative outcomes. Previous findings have been mixed in regard to leaders' sense of power and social behavior. Contextual factors that influence the relationship between leaders' sense of power and behavior need to be identified. Previous findings suggest that individual differences, goal orientation, and positional insecurity can act as essential contextual factors affecting whether or not power leads to self-focused or prosocial behavior (Maner & Mead, 2010; Williams, 2014). In contrast, our findings show that perceived task characteristics defined interactions and work-flow patterns in the workplace, and thus moderated the effect of sense of power on relationship conflict. In this way, we identified a new conditional factor for sense of power, and linked power theory to job design theory. In sum, our findings shed light on the importance of task characteristics in the conditional factors of sense of power.

Practical Implications

There are several important practical implications for management in this study. First, organizations should cultivate managers' sense of power. Leaders with a high sense of power exhibit more self-controlled behavior and take more opportunities than those with a low sense of power (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015), thus helping their teams achieve performance goals. Managers can activate their sense of power in several ways, for example, recalling an experience in which they had power. Second, our findings indicate that increasing leaders' sense of power is a useful way to improve the quality of leader-member interactions. Leaders with a high sense of power will pay more attention to their relationship with team members, seeking to avoid interpersonal conflict and achieve the team targets. Third, our findings indicate that increasing task interdependence is important in job design. Participation in highly interdependent tasks will promote cooperation and information sharing, strengthen interpersonal ties to achieve common goals, and help to reduce the incidence of conflict. Leaders need to adjust their behavior according to the degree of task interdependence, and should attach more importance to building a favorable and interactive relationship with team members when perceived task interdependence is low, as this may help to prevent relationship conflict.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are some limitations in this study. First, we investigated the effect of sense of power on team performance, but as sense of power may also affect team members' attitudes and extrarole behavior, these variables should be tested in future studies. Second, we tested the effect of sense of power at the team level only. Future researchers can use a multilevel method to investigate the effect of sense of power at different levels. Third, we did not analyze the relationship between sense of power and structural power in great detail. Some researchers have reported that sense of power can affect team processes only when the focal individual has a formal role (Tost et al., 2013). Future researchers should identify the difference between subjective sense of power and structural power and analyze the relationship between these two variables.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5662

References

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321-341. https://doi.org/dcm7bc

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377. https://doi.org/cthkdg

Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80, 313-344. https://doi.org/crtqkk

Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 702-710. https://doi.org/bkrzt4

Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102 , 994-1014. https://doi.org/ fzn9vw

Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The influence of sad mood on cognition. Emotion, 7, 802-811. https://doi.org/c84thv

de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390. https://doi.org/ccdw8t

DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D. (2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance: Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 47-65. https://doi.org/dcj43p

Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power: Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 421-460). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/bnxc

Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2013). Does power help or hurt? The moderating role of self-other focus on power and perspective-taking in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1097-1110. https://doi.org/bj3b

Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032-1044. https://doi.org/ bknrjc

Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2012). When do leaders sacrifice? The effects of sense of power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 883-896. https://doi.org/mmr

Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., & Keeney, J. (2011). A within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 44-64. https://doi.org/bnwmfv

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282. https://doi.org/cnp

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284. https://doi.org/fjpkks

Lau, R. S., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 898-917. https://doi.org/d87c99

Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). 2. Is it lonely at the top?: The independence and interdependence of power holders. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43-91. https://doi.org/dsq2w4

Lee, K. L. (2008). An examination between the relationships of conflict management styles and employees' satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management, 3, 11-25. https:// doi.org/bj3c

Lin, L.-H. (2014). Organizational structure and acculturation in acquisitions perspectives of congruence theory and task interdependence. Journal of Management, 40, 1831-1856. https:// doi.org/bj3d

Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 482-497. https://doi.org/c576tc

Narayanan, J., Tai, K., & Kinias, Z. (2013). Power motivates interpersonal connection following social exclusion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 257-265. https://doi.org/3fn

Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2006). Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders ' social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227-243. https://doi.org/dj2wpt

Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185-227. https:// doi.org/fwd4vb

Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 835-850. https://doi.org/c6z4wc

Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197-212. https://doi.org/2f6

Slabu, L., & Guinote, A. (2010). Getting what you want: Power increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344-349. https://doi.org/df5q77

Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41, 136-163. https://doi.org/bj3f

Tost, L. P. (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders "feel the power"? Examining the links between structural and psychological power and reviving the connection between power and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 29-56. https://doi.org/bj3g

Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1465-1486. https://doi.org/bj3h

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729-751. https://doi.org/frwktt

Wang, G., & Seibert, S. E. (2015). The impact of leader emotion display frequency on follower performance: Leader surface acting and mean emotion display as boundary conditions. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 577-593. https://doi.org/bj3j

Way, K. A., Jimmieson, N. J., & Bordia, P. (2016). Shared perceptions of supervisor conflict management style: A cross-level moderator of relationship conflict and employee outcomes. International Journal of Conflict Management, 27, 25-49. https://doi.org/bj3k

Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power: Goals and threats predict leaders' self-interested behavior. Journal of Management, 40, 1365-1395. https://doi.org/bj3m

Willis, G. B., & Guinote, A. (2011). The effects of social power on goal content and goal striving: A situated perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 706-719. https://doi.org/ cbf9kc

Yan Rong and Baiyin Yang, Department of Leadership and Organization Management, Tsinghua University; Lin Ma, Department of Leadership and Organization Management, School of Economics and Management, Beihang University.

YAN RONG AND BAIYIN YANG

Tsinghua University

LIN MA

Beihang University

This research has been supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71421061, 71232002, and 71502009).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lin Ma, School of Economics and Management, Beihang University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian, Beijing 100191, People's Republic of China. Email: malin2014@buaa.edu.cn

Caption: Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.

Caption: Figure 2. The moderating effect of perceived task interdependence.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study Variables

Variable                       M      SD            1

1. Team size                 10.80   15.21   --
2. Gender (1 = male)          0.37    0.49   -.07
3. Age (years)               39.49    8.35    .21 ([dagger])
4. Education (a)              2.44    1.25    .23 ([dagger])
5. Tenure (years)             4.04    2.93    .34 **
6. Hierarchical status (b)    2.20    0.86   -.04
7. Sense of power             5.00    0.75   -.04
8. Relationship conflict      2.33    0.33    .02
9. Task interdependence       5.95    0.68   -.04
10. Team performance          5.33    0.67   -.02

Variable                        2              3               4

1. Team size
2. Gender (1 = male)         --
3. Age (years)                .44 ***   --
4. Education (a)              .51 ***   -.16              --
5. Tenure (years)             .28 *      .23 ([dagger])    .06
6. Hierarchical status (b)    .55 ***    .32 **            .62 ***
7. Sense of power             .05       -.08               .30 *
8. Relationship conflict     -.10        .05              -.12
9. Task interdependence      -.01        .01               .20
                                                           ([dagger])
10. Team performance         -.03        .10              -.12

Variable                            5            6         7

1. Team size
2. Gender (1 = male)
3. Age (years)
4. Education (a)
5. Tenure (years)            --
6. Hierarchical status (b)    .27 *            --
7. Sense of power            -.23 ([dagger])    .24 *   (.70)
8. Relationship conflict      .02              -.05     -.32 **
9. Task interdependence      -.20 ([dagger])    .14      .32 **
10. Team performance         -.11              -.05      .32 **

Variable                        8        9      10

1. Team size
2. Gender (1 = male)
3. Age (years)
4. Education (a)
5. Tenure (years)
6. Hierarchical status (b)
7. Sense of power
8. Relationship conflict     (.88)
9. Task interdependence      -.15      (.75)
10. Team performance         -.40 **   .20     (.71)

Note. N = 70. (a) Coded as 1 = middle school and below, 2 = high
school, 3 = bachelor's degree, 4 = master's degree, 5 = doctoral
degree. (b) Coded as 1 = nonmanagement, 2 = line management, 3 =
middle management, 4 = senior/executive management. Cronbach's a are
shown in parentheses on the diagonal, ([dagger]) p < .10, * p < .05,
** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 2. Regression Results

Variable                               Team performance

                          M1     M2      M3        M4          M5

Team size                 .00    .00   -.00      -.00      -.00
Gender (1 = male)        -.01   -.01    .05      -.03      -.04
Age (years)               .01    .01    .01       .01       .01
Education                -.05   -.05   -.11      -.10      -.07
Tenure (years)           -.03   -.03    .00      -.00       .01
Hierarchical status              .01   -.08      -.05      -.07
Sense of power                          .37 **    .26 *     .32 *
Relationship conflict                            -.68 **   -.50 *
Task interdependence                                        .15
Sense of power x                                            .28
  task interdependence                                     ([dagger])
[DELTA][R.sup.2]                 .00    .14 **    .10 **    .05
[R.sup.2]                .04     .04    .18       .27       .33

Variable                           Team-level leader-member
                                     relationship conflict

                          M6     M7      M8        M9       M10

Team size                 .00    .00    .00       .00      .00
Gender (1 = male)        -.09   -.09   -.11      -.13     -.08
Age (years)               .00    .00    .00       .00      .00
Education                -.01   -.02    .01       .01     -.02
Tenure (years)            .01    .01   -.01      -.01     -.01
Hierarchical status              .01    .05       .05      .05
Sense of power                         -.16 **   -.15 *   -.19 **
Relationship conflict
Task interdependence                             -.04     -.07
Sense of power x                                          -.21 **
  task interdependence
[DELTA][R.sup.2]                 .00    .10 **    .01      .10 **
[R.sup.2]                 .02    .02    .13       .13      .23

Note. N = 70. Values are unstandardized
coefficients, ([dagger]) p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rong, Yan; Yang, Baiyin; Ma, Lin
Publication:Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal
Article Type:Report
Date:May 1, 2017
Words:6073
Previous Article:Testing objectification theory with Chinese undergraduate women and men.
Next Article:Are more traditional employees less innovative? Colleagues' and leaders' influences matter.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters