Running head: DIVERSITY AND LEADER EMOTIONAL MANAGEMENT ON GROUP PROCESSES AND PERFORMANCE
The Effect of Leader Emotional Management on Group Relational Processes and Performance in Diverse Teams
Research Master Psychology Internship Katerina Retzou
Student ID: 10620850
Supervisor: Astrid Homan (Work and Organizational Psychology) Graduate School of Psychology
Abstract
The present study examined the potential effect of agreeableness diversity and leader emotional management skills on the group relational processes such as cohesion, conflict and subgroup perception, and on performance. A longitudinal study was conducted that followed twenty-nine diverse groups for six weeks within the context of a university course. Groups were asked to work on several interactive tasks. Results failed to provide confirmation to our predictions. For this reason we attempt to offer some possible explanations.
Keywords: agreeableness diversity, leader emotional management, group relational processes and performance
The Effect of Leader Emotional Management on Group Relational Processes and Performance in Diverse Teams
As long as an increasing number of organizations’ employees come from different demographic and socio-cultural backgrounds with various areas of expertise, tenure, and experience, organizational diversity is quite an inevitable fact (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Past research has indicated that work-group diversity may entail both a positive and negative impact on group outcomes (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998; Milliken & Martins, 1996). Thus, the need to study and understand how diversity can be managed in the group context so as to minimize its risks and profit from its benefits is more prominent than ever. A review by van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) points out that the main challenge for diversity research is to determine the factors under which diverse groups may reach desirable outcomes. In this respect, leadership (defined as influencing a group of people to obtain a certain goal, Stogdill & Coons, 1957) may play an important moderating role in the effects of diversity on group processes and subsequently performance. Recent studies on leadership in diverse teams have centered on leadership styles such as Leader-Member Exchange (Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Brimhall, Lizano & Mor Barak, 2014), transformational leadership (Kearney & Gebert, 2009) and initiating structure and consideration (Bass, 1990; Burke et al., 2006). Despite previous elaboration on leadership styles, we believe it is necessary to pay closer attention to what are the skills of leaders that can trigger the favorable mechanisms within a diverse team to ensure high quality performance.
In the present study, we focus on the catalytic role that leaders’ emotional management skills may play in association to the negative effects of diversity. We suggest that when potential negative issues arise such as disagreements, conflicts, and distrust among different members of a team, they can be successfully regulated by a
leader who exhibits high-quality emotional management skills. In particular, leaders who can manage emotions of members and emotional situations in the team context can enhance team processes such as cohesion, trust, safety and lower conflict within a diverse team. Before we focus on the moderating role of group leadership and
emotional management on relational processes, we first briefly outline the current state of diversity research and main theoretical perspectives as developed in relation to work groups.
Diversity’s two-fold nature
Diversity is typically defined as differences between individuals on any
attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from self (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). As a result, diversity can theoretically refer to a wide range of dimensions such as demographics (age, gender, and ethnicity), cultural, social, functional and educational background as well as tenure, and expertise. However, research on work diversity has mainly focused on a narrower spectrum of variables such as gender, age, race/ethnicity, tenure, educational background, and functional background (Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Within this literature, there are theories that have focused on the positive predictions or outcomes of diversity (Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen, 1993; Cox, Lobel & McLeod, 1991) as well as on the negative effects of diversity (e.g. Social Identity Theory [Tajfel,1981], Intergroup Theory [Alderfer, 1986], Social- and Self-categorization theories [Pettigrew, 1986; Tajfel, 1981], Similarity/attraction theory [Byrne, Clore, & Smeaton, 1971]). These theories fall under the umbrella of social categorization and information-processing perspectives. In particular, the social categorization perspective (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) holds that if people differ from one another, then categorization within a team will
most probably arise, which in turn will often lead to negative group outcomes (van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Problematic intergroup relations such as group conflict, low group cohesion, commitment may account for these results (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Therefore,
categorization perspective supports that group heterogeneity is negatively related to favorable outcomes. On the other hand, the information/decision-making perspective posits that diverse work groups may outperform homogenous groups because they are likely to have access to a broader range of task relevant resources such as
task-relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, which can facilitate problem-solving, constructive conflict and debate, and quality of decision making, promote creativity and innovation (Cox et al., 1991; Joshi & Roh, 2007; Webber & Donahue, 2001). Thus, the more diverse team members are, the more likely they are to perform effectively and attain task goals.
Apparently, the main question remains how diversity may affect group processes and performance. In an attempt to integrate the social categorization and information decision making perspectives, van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan (2004) proposed the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). This model suggests that diversity will lead to elaboration of task-relevant information when the team does not experience intergroup bias, when the task involves complex
information-processing and decision-making components, when the group is highly motivated to perform the task, and when group members are high in task ability (van Knippenberg et. al., 2004). Therefore, CEM emphasizes the importance of examining mediators and moderators of the effects of diversity in order to more thoroughly understand its influence on team outcomes.
Building on the importance of this line of thought, current research suggests that team leadership may play a central role in regulating the impact of diversity on team processes and performance (Greer, Homan, De Hoogh, & Den Hartog, 2012; Klein et al., 2011; Homan & Jehn, 2010; Somech, 2006). Recent research has focused on leadership styles such as transformational leadership (Kearney & Gebert, 2009), Leader-Member Exchange (Cashman, Dansereau, Graen & Haga, 1976; Nishii & Mayer, 2009; Stewart & Johnson, 2009), and initiating structure and consideration (Homan & Greer, 2012; Klein et al., 2011), all pointing out the importance of leader’s function in the team to avoid the adverse effects of diversity.
To start with, transformational leadership is associated with decreasing the likelihood of affective conflict, which results from social categorization, by triggering social identification of members through the presentation of a convincing and
collective vision (Avolio & Bass, 1994; Bass, 1985). When members are convinced to internalize this vision, they start thinking of collective interests, and perceive their individual effort and work roles in the context of the group’s cooperative goals (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). Research also suggests that high priority of co-operation and interdependence through commitment to a shared vision results in members’ focusing on the group as a basis for categorization which increases cohesion and decreases the likelihood of intra-group conflict (Henry et al., 1999).
Regarding Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), key is that members’ work-related attitudes and behaviors depend on how their leaders treat them. So if leaders consider the individual diverse aspects and needs when communicating with
members, they will most likely establish a safe and trustful environment for members where they will be able to exchange information and reach high quality decisions. In this respect, Stewart and Johnson (2009) found that diverse teams with respect to
gender, race, age, and tenure exhibited higher performance and lower turn-over rates when they exhibited higher LMX.
Finally, regarding leader consideration, when leaders in diverse teams initiate consideration, their main goal is to create a safe environment for members in which they will feel free to exchange their knowledge and express their disagreement, be encouraged to overcome subgroup perceptions and be motivated to cooperate on common goals in spite of their differences. Research on leader consideration suggests that highly considerate leaders can improve group functioning in diverse teams and they are preferred by team members because they perceive and treat group members as unique individuals (Homan & Greer, 2013).
As previous theory and research on leadership styles has established, leaders may have a significant impact on the relational component of teams let alone on diverse teams. Therefore, we believe that it is important to further investigate the emotional management skills of the leader in relation to preventing the negative effects of diversity on the relationships among members. In the present study, we focus on the role of emotional management as performed by emergent leaders within diverse groups. Emotional management is a fundamental aspect of leadership (e.g., George, 2000; Pescosolido, 2002)and plays a critical role in understanding and forming relational processes (e.g., Jordan & Troth, 2002; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Zeidner, Roberts, & Matthews, 2008). We propose that emotional management can be a valuable tool to control for the potential drawbacks of diversity. This is because it can foster positive affective group processes such as cohesion, trust, and safety as well as create affirmative and constructive group climate, processes that may require greater assistance in diverse teams rather than homogeneous teams. Limiting
intergroup bias and sub-group categorization will reduce conflicts and ensure smooth relations among diverse members.
Salovey and Mayer (1997) identified the main traits that are related to successful leader emotional management; 1) the ability to perceive one’s own emotions; 2) the ability to perceive others’ emotions; 3) the ability to manage one’s own emotions; and 4) the ability to manage others’ emotions (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999; Salovey & Mayer, 1993). Additionally, they argue that empathy, defined as "the ability to comprehend another’s feelings and to re-experience them oneself," is an essential characteristic of emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1993, p.194). Equipped with these abilities, emotionally intelligent individuals may use various emotion management strategies, examine their different effects on emotions, and learn which strategies are the most effective (Côté, Miners, & Moon, 2006). From this knowledge they can select the best strategies to influence the emotional behaviors of the other group members for enhancing group performance. George (2000) has found that leaders may affect their group by moderating and changing other members’ emotional reactions to particular behaviors such as changing opinions and initiatives (George, 2000). Also, McColl-Kennedy and Anderson (2002) found that the ability of leaders to influence feelings of frustration and optimism had a large influence on team performance. Considering the critical role of leaders in shaping team processes (Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002) and emotional climate (Drusakt & Wolff, 2001), in this study we argue that a leader with high emotional intelligence is able to focus on building positive climate and trustful relationships by limiting subgroup formation and conflicts, increasing intra-group communication and expression of different viewpoints, developing a safe
decisions. In turn, these group processes will improve the performance of their groups.
Thus, our research question focuses on the potential effect of diversity on group performance and the extent to which emotional management of a leader can moderate the effects of diversity on group processes and performance. Based on the previous theoretical background, we set out to hypothesize the following:
H1a: Agreeableness diversity will hamper group processes that are associated with constructive interaction such as cohesion, trust, psychological safety, and communication.
H1b: Agreeableness diversity will increase levels of conflict and subgroup formation.
H2a: Individuals with heightened emotional management skills can boost the levels of group cohesion, trust, psychological safety, information exchange and elaboration within diverse teams.
H2b: Individuals with heightened emotional management skills can lower the levels of subgroup categorization and conflict within diverse teams.
H3: The interaction between team diversity and leader emotional management will affect performance through the mediation of group relational processes.
Methods Sample
A total of 89 (34 males) bachelor students enrolled in a course of
Organizational Psychology in the University of Amsterdam participated in the study. The majority of the participants were Dutch psychology students born in Netherlands (N = 80). In addition, they were several international students from Canada, Italy, Mexico and USA. Their age ranged from 19 to 27 years (M = 22.08, SD = 1.71). Students were also diverse in terms of year of study with their university experience ranging from one to 6 years (M = 3.18, SD = 0.81). Students were randomly assigned to 29 groups (N = 3 or N = 4). The groups were composed in such a way that they comprised at least of one person of the opposite sex. Their participation was voluntary and they received extra course credits for their final course grade.
Procedure and materials
To test our model we conducted a longitudinal quasi-experiment and followed 29 student groups within the context of a Bachelor university course called “Working in Groups” at the University of Amsterdam. Students were expected to work together over a period of six consecutive weeks on a variety of group assignments that were administered to them at the end of each lecture. On Week 1, students were divided into random groups at the end of the class meeting and were given information about their participation in the study. Although, our study assessed leader emotional
management, leaders were not appointed to teams but they were expected to emerge during teams’ interaction and pointed out by members in the team at the end of the study. On Week 2, participants were given Assignment 1, which consisted of three tasks such as introducing themselves to each other, making a drawing, and finding a representative name for their group after collaborating with each other. At the end of
the same class, they were also given a short version of the STEM (30 items) and they were requested to provide a short report about the first phase of their group’s
interaction to be handed in at the next class meeting. On Week 3, they were given Assignment 2 which was characterized by a higher level of group interaction. More specifically, group members were asked to determine a creative menu that included one same ingredient in all courses they prepared, to decide on the person they would offer the dinner to, and on the place that the dinner would be cooked and served. Likewise, they had to write a report on this phase of group interaction such as on the decision making process and mention all the necessary information (i.e. common ingredient, the person they would invite for dinner, the location of cooking and serving the diner) to be handed in at the next class meeting. On Week 4, participants were given Assignment 3, on which they were expected to work through Week 4 and 5. In this phase, we believe that the level of cooperation, information exchange and elaboration, decision making, communication and possible conflict increased dramatically as participants had to engage in more complex and contact demanding activities. In particular, they were asked to a) purchase the necessary ingredients for which they had a cost limit of 10 euro , b) collaborate and assist each other in cooking the dinner menu, and c) serve it to the person they decided upon. In addition, the participants were asked to give a survey to the dinner guest in order to assess his/her perception on the quality of food and dinner experience. It was mandatory that all groups take pictures of all the tasks having taken place during Assignment 3 and prepare a 15-slide presentation in which they were asked to include 1) a selection of pictures to illustrate the cooking and serving of the dinner courses, 2) the specific menu they had prepared and their dinner guest, 3) explain the reasons that they believed their group had been creative (or not) during the dinner process and provide
one theory that was confirmed and one that disconfirmed by their group’s interaction and experience. Finally, on Week 6 group members were requested to submit a final report (Assignment 4) on which they had to reflect on their group experience
describing interaction processes that they felt satisfied and comfortable with and other processes that they believed could have been better and improved within their team. In addition, they were asked to discuss at least one case they would have behaved differently if they had started a team task again. On Week 6, group members were given a survey through which we assessed group relational processes of interest such as cohesion, trust, safety, information exchange, subgroup categorization and conflict as well as members’ perception on who had the leader role in the team, the extent to which this person resembled a typical leader, and the extent to which their team resembled a typical team.
Measures
Agreeableness diversity. We operationalized agreeableness diversity as the coefficient of variation of agreeableness (the standard deviation of all team members scores on agreeableness divided by the mean [Harrison & Klein, 2007]). We used the NEO Personality Inventory – NEO-PI (Costa & McCrea, 1992; McCrae, & Costa, 1987) to assess personality traits as presented in the Big Five model (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience). Participants were given a short version of NEO-PI consisting of 60 items (e.g. “I generally try to be thoughtful and considerate”). The coefficient alpha estimate of reliability for the 60 items was = .75. Participants were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each statement on 5-point Likert-type response scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 5= Strongly Agree). We computed the mean score on the NEO- PI test at the individual level before aggregating it to the group level.
Leader emotional management skills. Members’ decisions on a variety of
emotional situations were considered as their emotional management skills and they were measured by the Situational Test of Emotional Management – STEM (MacCann & Roberts, 2008). Participants were given the short version of STEM which comprised of 30 items. For each item, a scenario was presented, for example “Lee's workmate fails to deliver an
important piece of information on time, causing Lee to fall behind schedule also”. Participants were asked to select which of four strategies they thought the person should have applied in this instance to improve emotions and manage the problem. Possible strategies might have included: a) work harder to compensate, b) get angry with the workmate, c) explain the urgency of the situation to the workmate, or d) never rely on that workmate again. The items related to work and personal life and depict sadness, anger, fear, or disgust. We calculated the mean score on the STEM at the individual level and we used the mean individual score of the person that group members suggested to have a leader role during group interaction as the leader emotional management moderator variable.
Group processes. We measured group relational processes by a number of process-related items on a 7-point Likert-type response scale (1= Strongly Disagree, 7= Strongly Agree) on which participants were asked to indicate the level of their agreement. In particular, information exchange and elaboration were measured by 10 items (e.g. “I find that I can share with my group enough unique information”) developed by Homan et al. (2007). Team communication was assessed by 3 items (e.g. “There is an open communication in this team”) developed by Gibson and Vermeulen (2003). Group trust was measured with 4 items (e.g. “To which extent do your team members expect to hear the truth from each other?”) developed by Simons and Peterson (2000). Group conflict was assessed with 33 items (e.g. “Interpersonal conflicts are even encouraged in this team”) developed by Jehn et al. (2006). Social cohesion was measured by 7 items (e.g. “I see myself as a member of my group”)
adopted from Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley (1985). We assessed psychological safety with 7 items (e.g. “It is difficult to find other members of this group to ask for help”) developed by Edmondson (1999). Subgroup perception was assessed by 6 items (e.g. “My group often splits into smaller groups during work”) developed by Jehn and Bezrukova (2010). Before including scales of processes in the main analysis, we tested for internal consistency and reliability using Cronbach’s alpha. The analysis revealed that the scales of social cohesion (α =.91),sub-group
perception (α=.89), team communication dimensions of conflict such as task conflict (α =.83), task conflict climate (α =.79), relationship conflict (α =.86), relationship conflict coping (α =.79), process conflict (α =.90) and emotionality conflict (α =.90) appeared to have good internal consistency. Thus, only those processes that were found reliable at the alpha level of >.70 were used in the analysis. Firstly, we computed the individual mean scores on these processes. In the next step, in order to determine whether aggregation of processes to the team level was appropriate, we computed the ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg (Bliese, 2000). Indices of reliability and within-group agreement for social cohesion (ICC[1] = .26; F[29, 62] = 2.06, p < .009, 2
= 0.49, one-tailed; ICC[2] = .51; rwg(j) = .73), task conflict (ICC[1] = .43; F[29, 62] = 3.23; p < .000, 2
= 0.60, one-tailed; ICC[2] = .69; rwg(j) = .83), process conflict (ICC[1] = .18; F[29, 62] = 1.65; p < .05, 2
= 0.43, one-tailed; ICC[2] = .39; rwg(j = .60), relationship conflict (ICC[1] = .26; F[29, 62] = 2.08; p < .05, 2
= 0.49, one-tailed; ICC[2] = .52; rwg(j) = .79) and subgroup perception (ICC[1] = .19; F[29, 62] = 1.70; p < .05, 2
= 0.44, one-tailed; ICC[2] = .41; rwg(j) = .40) were sufficient to support the aggregation of variables measured on the individual level to the group level.
Group performance quality. We considered group performance quality as our group outcome and it was operationalized as the grade that teams received on
Assignment 3 (presentation task) and Assignment 4 (reflection task) during the course, and a final group paper. Group performance on the assignments was graded on a continuum from 1 to 10 (1= poor performance, 10 = excellent performance) by the course instructor who was blind to conditions. We used the grade of each
assignment separately in the analysis as we believe they relate to different qualities of group interaction and different dimensions of relational processes.
Control variables. In our study we controlled for agreeableness at the group level to determine whether teams whose members scored high on agreeableness diversity performed worse on the tasks than teams whose members scored low on agreeableness diversity. To examine this we used the standard deviation of
agreeableness. In addition, we measured all personality traits according to the Big Five model and we examined the potential effect of mean personality score on performance. No other personality trait was found to significantly predict performance so we proceeded to test our hypotheses without these dimensions. Finally, we controlled for diversity in gender, age and ethnic background of group members as well as gender and age of group leader. But since the members were randomly assigned to teams, we did not expect any effects of age and ethnic composition.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables of interest are given in Table 1 at the end of results section.
Agreeableness diversity and group processes. According to Hypothesis 1a, we predicted that agreeableness diversity may have a negative effect on group
processes that facilitate high-quality interaction such as cohesion, and have promoted processes that disturb this facilitation (H1b) such as conflict and subgroup
categorization. A regression analysis was conducted to check for a main effect of agreeableness diversity on team relational processes. The analysis revealed that agreeableness diversity was negatively related to cohesion ( = -.12, p = .52, one-tailed), process conflict ( = -.03, p = .87, one-one-tailed), task conflict ( = -.24, p = .20, one-tailed) and positively related to relationship conflict ( = .15, p = .42, one-tailed), subgroup perception ( = .15, p = .40, one-tailed) but none of the relationships were significant at the alpha level of 0.05.
Leader emotional management and group processes. In next step, we were interested to determine the relationship of leader emotional management and group relational processes since we hypothesized that leader emotional management would have a moderating effect on group processes in order to boost positive interaction within the team (H2). A regression analysis was performed to examine this
moderating effect. The results did not indicate a significant relationship between the variables in contrast to our hypothesis (cohesion [ = -.08, p = .65, one-tailed], process conflict [ = -.006, p = .98, one-tailed], subgroup perception [ = -.10, p = .58, one-tailed], relationship conflict [ = -.03, p = .85, one-tailed], and task conflict [ = .31, p = .09, one-tailed]). Therefore, our hypothesis could not be confirmed.
Agreeableness and leader emotional management interaction. Since none of the above analyses generated any confirmatory results while running leader emotional management and diversity on separate tests, we were still interested to examine whether there is an interaction effect between these two variables on
emotional group processes and performance (H3) so as to set the ground for a potential mediation relationship of agreeableness diversity and leader emotional management on performance through the contribution of processes. To examine this hypothesis, we firstly calculated the product term of agreeableness and leader emotional management using the centered scores for agreeableness and leader emotional management. Similar to previous results, the analysis revealed no significant relationship between our variables of interest with either of the group processes (cohesion [ = .16, p = .38, one-tailed]; process conflict [ = -.16, p = .40, one-tailed]; subgroup perception [ = -.06, p = .73, one-tailed]; relationship conflict [ = -.13, p = .48, one-tailed]; task conflict [ = -.21, p = .25, one-tailed]) or
performance (presentation task [ = .17, p = .37, one-tailed]; reflection task [ = -.05, p = .78, one-tailed]). Thus, since our interaction hypothesis was confirmed we did not have grounds for proceeding with testing mediation.
Discussion
Despite the accumulative research on diversity in the work environment during the past decades, research on the moderating role of leadership in diverse teams is still at the beginning. We aimed at contributing to this area of research by arguing for the potential favorable effects of leader emotional management on team
performance as a function of its moderating effect on the relational processes that develop within diverse teams. We proposed that high emotional management skills of leaders (which are characterized by facilitating positive interaction and a constructive environment) can be a valuable tool for protecting teams from the negative effects of diversity. Processes such as group cohesion, communication, conflict and subgroup bias may require greater assistance in diverse teams rather than in homogeneous teams. In particular, we hypothesized that agreeableness diversity would decrease the level of constructive relational processes (H1a) and increase the level of adverse relational processes (H1b). However, we predicted that group processes can be enhanced by a leader with good emotional management skills (H2a and H2b) so that the interaction of diversity and leader emotional management can in fact have a positive impact on relational processes and result in a high quality group performance through the mediating role of enhanced relational processes (H3).
In our study we operationalized diversity as “agreeableness diversity” using the coefficient of variation of agreeableness within teams. In addition, we used the grade that each team received by the class instructor on the group presentation task and reflection task as our operationalization of group performance. Although we found that diversity was indeed negatively related to performance quality, the relationship was not significant. The potentially beneficial leader emotional management skills on processes were assessed by using the mean score on the Situational Test of Emotional Management – STEM (MacCann & Roberts, 2008) of the emerged leader of teams. In a similar vein, we used the individual scores on each relational process (cohesion, process conflict, relationship conflict, task conflict, and subgroup perception) aggregated to the group level as our operationalization for group processes. The results failed to support a significant relationship between leader
emotional management skills and relational processes (H2a and 2b). However, we believe it is worth noting that despite the insignificant results, we found that leader skills related negatively with dimensions of conflict. Likewise, we were not able to find a significant relationship between agreeableness diversity and group processes (H1a and H1b). What is more, results failed to predict a significant link between the interaction of agreeableness diversity and leader emotional management skills with group relational processes and subsequently with group performance disproving our Hypothesis 3.
Since none of the results were successful in giving grounds to our predictions we set out to investigate the possible reasons that may have accounted for this outcome. In this attempt we consider paying closer attention to our study design and measures as well as to the theoretical background of our hypotheses. We will refer to these considerations in the context of the relationships that did not prove to be
significant.
Considering our measure of diversity that is agreeableness, we infer that it may have failed to capture the notion of diversity to the level required in order to comprise a problematic factor for team functioning such as relational processes and performance. The level of diversity in agreeableness within a newly composed team may not be as high enough as to hinder relational processes such as communication, cohesion, collaboration, and trigger conflict and subgroup perception. A reason that may account for this possibility is that group members that are randomly assigned to a team and are not familiar with each other attempt to create a common positive ground. Thus, most probably they will not exhibit big variance in their levels of agreeableness as they may all prefer to appear rather sympathetic, cooperative and considerate. For this reason, we believe that this measure may not have been the correct one to account
for the diversity variable and it might have been more successful to utilize another personality trait as an operationaization. For example, research by Homan et. al. (2008) suggests openness to experience as a measure of diverse personality composition that is closely related to teams functioning. Specifically, Homan et. al.(2008) have found that openness to experience seems to be related to the
performance of diverse teams since it is an individual difference variable that may influence attitudes and feelings about group work and therefore be more important to study it in the context of diversity in teams. According to their research (Homan et al., 2008) openness to experience has received the least research attention of all the personality traits of the Big-Five model. Hence, it would be reasonable that in the future we pay more research attention to openness to experience as a diverse
personality variable within teams and explored its relationship with team functioning. Considering the assessment of agreeableness diversity, we asked from
participants to answer the NEO Personality Inventory – NEO-PI (Costa & McCrea, 1992; McCrae, & Costa, 1987) on Week 2 that is at the beginning of their group interaction. Although agreeableness is included in the Big Five personality model that research has suggested remains rather stable over time, however individual levels of agreeableness expression may have been more precise after teams have completed their assignments, and therefore more relevant to our study. This is because the experience of relational processes would be more recent and vivid by the end of the groups’ interaction. Thus, group members may provide more accurate feedback on the extent to which they exhibited differences in agreeableness. By this reason we suggest that it may be also important to assess individual perceptions of agreeableness
expression levels during group interaction rather than the personality self-reported trait alone.
Lack of the analysis to support that highly emotional intelligent leaders can facilitate cohesion, decrease conflict and subgroup perception and subsequently enhance performance motivated us to reflect on several possible reasons that may have led to this outcome. In this case as well, we consider that perceptions of group members regarding emotional management skills of the leader may play an important role in the regulation of group processes. By assessing members’ scores on the Situational Test of Emotional Management – STEM (MacCann & Roberts, 2008) provided us with a measurement of those individuals’ potential emotional
management ability. However, this measure may not have been sufficient for
assessing the leader impact on relational processes as it may deviate to a considerable extent from how group members’ actually perceived and experienced this emotional management. Since relational processes evolve within a group, they are directly linked to group members’ perceptions. Consequently, perceptions of leader emotional skills seem to be a possible reason for the lack of leader influence on the group
processes that we predicted. Whiteoak and Manning (2012) have found that members’ perception of supervisor’s emotional intelligence accounts for a number of group outcomes such as task and job satisfaction, and workgroup attachment. In support of these findings, Mayer et al. (2000) claim that self-report measures of ability suffer from low reliability and validity suggesting that an individual’s self-assessment is in actuality self-concept rather than an actual ability or trait. Therefore, if we assess member perceptions’ of leader emotional management skills instead of assessing leader’s skills alone may add more information on the actual level of emotional management taking place within a team and then use both measures to examine the impact on relational group processes. It is worth noting here that in our study some members’ opinions did not converge to the same person as being the leader in their
team. This also suggests that members’ perception of leader may vary across
members which can make the assessment of leader emotional management skills even more complicated.
Another possible reason that may account for the lack of confirmatory results between leader emotional management and group processes maybe the duration of members’ interaction. The student groups in our study were asked to work together over the period of six weeks but this did not necessarily entail a daily basis contact. We cannot be fully aware of the length of time that groups invested on tasks and collaboration but it may not have been long enough for the leader to be able to
regulate group processes essentially and to the degree that it would affect performance of the group. Length of time may play a critical role in altering the level of
consideration that leaders demonstrate to subordinates (Avolio & Bass, 1955). A final reason to explain the lack of impact of leader emotional management skills on relational processes may be that team members were not in need of such contribution in order to manage and cooperate with each other. Being in the academic context of a university course is highly characterized by promotion of teamwork and team processes such as collaboration, open communication and information exchange, respect, expression and constructive management of disagreement among students. Within such a trustful and safe environment members of diverse teams may behave in such ways that can allow them to reach high quality performance without requiring the emotional contribution of a leader.
Conclusion and Further Study
In conclusion, although the present study did not provide any statistical support for the effect of leader management skills on group relational processes and performance, we still believe it constitutes a promising moderator for allowing the
positive nature of group diversity to unfold. Thus, we believe it should be in the center of further research in the future.
References
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 199-218. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re‐examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor
Leadership. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 72(4), 441-462.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 9– 32.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Jaussi, K. S. (2008). Leaders, followers, and time. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 654-668.
Brimhall, K. C., Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). The mediating role of inclusion: A longitudinal study of the effects of leader–member exchange and
diversity climate on job satisfaction and intention to leave among child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 79-88. Burke. C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M.
(2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta- analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
Carron, A. V.,Widmeyer,W. N.,& Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Cashman, J., Dansereau Jr, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1976). Organizational understructure and leadership: A longitudinal investigation of the managerial role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 15(2), 278-296.
Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Reply to Ben-Porath and Waller. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 20-22.
Côté, S., Miners, C. T. H., & Moon, S. (2006). Emotional intelligence and wise emotion regulation in the workplace. In W. J. Zerbe, N. Ashkanasy, & C. E. J. Härtel (Eds.), Research on emotions in organizations. Oxford: Elsevier. Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & McLeod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic group cultural
differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task.Academy of management journal, 34(4), 827-847.
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 80-91.
Edmondson, A.(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53, 1027−1055.
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 202-239. Greer, L. L., Homan, A. C., De Hoogh, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2012). Tainted visions:
The effect of visionary leader behaviors and leader categorization tendencies on the financial performance of ethnically diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 203–213.
Homan, A. C., & Greer, L. L. (2013). Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 105-125.
Homan, A. C., & Jehn, K. A. (2010). How leaders can make diverse groups less difficult. The role of attitudes and perceptions of diversity. The handbook for working with difficult groups: How they are difficult, why they are difficult and what you can do about it, 311-322.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007).
Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the
functioning of diverse work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 79-94.
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., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a
difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional intelligence and conflict resolution. Human performance, 17(2), 195-218.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: an integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2007). Context matters: a multilevel framework for work team
diversity research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 26. (pp. 1−48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes:
The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89.
Klein, K. J., Knight, A. P., Ziegert, J. C., Chong Lim, B., & Saltz, J. L. (2011). When team members’ values differ: The moderating role of team leadership.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114, 25–36. MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional
intelligence: theory and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540.
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267-298. McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & Anderson, R. D. (2002). Impact of leadership style and
emotions on subordinate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 545- 559.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52(1), 81.
Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of
Nishii, L. H., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Do inclusive leaders help to reduce turnover in diverse groups? The moderating role of leader–member exchange in the diversity to turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1412.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative science quarterly, 44(1), 1-28.
Pescosolido, A. T. (2002). Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 583-599.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17(4), 433-442.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Somech, A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 1003−1018.
Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell. van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C., & Homan, A. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008-1022.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of management journal, 36(3), 590-602.
Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141−162.
Whiteoak, J. W., & Manning, R. L. (2012). Emotional intelligence and its
implications on individual and group performance: a study investigating employee perceptions in the United Arab Emirates. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(8), 1660-1687.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.
Zaccaro, S. J., & Klimoski, R. J. (Eds.). (2002). The nature of organizational
leadership: Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders (Vol. 12). John Wiley & Sons.
Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Matthews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intelligence. European Psychologist, 13(1), 64-78
