Task conflict and team outcomes: The role of transformational leadership and perceived diversity

Task conflict and team outcomes: The

role of transformational leadership and

perceived diversity

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Supervisor : Prof. H.B.M. (Eric) Molleman

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ... 2

Contents ... Error! Bookmark not defined. List of Tables ... 3

List of Figure... 4

Abstracts ... 5

1. Introduction ... 6

2. Theoretical Overview... 9

2.1. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance ... 9

2.2. Transformational Leadership ... 10

2.3. The transformational leadership role in task conflict – team outcomes relationship ... 12

2.3.1. Intellectual stimulation and task conflict: Perceived diversity as a moderator ... 12

2.3.2. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance ... 14

2.3.3. The moderating role of individual consideration and idealized influence ... 16

2.3.4. Examining a conditional process model ... 18

2.4. Research Model ... 19

3. Method ... 20

3.1. Participants and procedures ... 20

3.2. Measures ... 20

3.2.1. Transformational Leadership (Administered by team members) ... 20

3.2.2. Task Conflict (Administered by team members) ... 21

3.2.3. Perceived Diversity (Administered by team members) ... 21

3.2.4. Job satisfaction (Administered by team members)... 21

3.2.5. Team performance (Administered by team leaders) ... 22

3.2.6. Control variable ... 22

3.3. Aggregation... 22

4. Results ... 23

4.1. Descriptive Statistics ... 23

3 | P a g e

4.2.2. Intellectual stimulation, and task conflict: The moderating role of perceived diversity

... 23

4.2.2. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance: The moderating role of individual consideration and idealized influence ... 25

4.2.3. Examining the Moderation-Mediation Model using PROCESS ... 28

5. Discussion and Conclusion ... 29

5.1. Managerial Implications ... 31

5.2. Limitations and Future Research... 32

Bibliography ... 34 Appendix A: Questionnaire ... 41 Intellectual stimulation ... 41 Individual consideration ... 41 Idealized influence ... 41 Task conflict ... 41 Perceived Diversity ... 41 Job Satisfaction ... 41 Team performance ... 41

Appendix B: SPSS PROCESS Analysis ... 43

Job satisfaction as the dependent variable ... 43

Team performance as the dependent variable ... 45

List of Tables Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables (team level) ... 23

Table 2 Results of regression analyses testing the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict and the perceived diversity as the moderator ... 25

Table 3 Results of regression analyses testing the model in which individual consideration moderates the relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction ... 26

Table 4 Results of regression analyses testing the model in which individual consideration moderates the relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction ... 27

4 | P a g e

List of Figure

5 | P a g e

Abstracts

Despite published research on the negative effects of task conflict on team outcomes (team performance and job satisfaction), not much is known about how to minimize the dark side of task conflict within a team. As suggested by De Dreu and Weingart’s meta-analysis (2003) conflict may have positive consequences under very specific circumstances. This study focuses on the mechanisms and conditions that exist between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance using transformational leadership components (intellectual stimulation, individual consideration and idealized influence) and perceived diversity. I expect that intellectual stimulation is able to generate task conflict and will be enhanced when the level of perceived diversity is high. In addition, in line with the De Dreu and Weingart’s meta-analysis (2003), task conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction and team performance, but the relationship will be less negative or even positive when the team leader displays high levels of individual consideration and idealized influence behavior. The data for this study was collected through a questionnaire distributed among 39 teams (140 team members and 39 team leaders). The findings show that intellectual stimulation is related to task conflict, but the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict is not contingent upon perceived diversity. Further, the negative relationship between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance is not statistically significant, and the two transformational leadership dimensions failed to moderate the relationship. The conclusion, the limitations and the implications for future research and managerial are discussed.

6 | P a g e

1. Introduction

Scholars argue that conflict is ubiquitous with teamwork and inherent in team members’ interactions (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). It ultimately influences both job satisfaction and team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Wall & Callister, 1995). Extant conflict studies have found that conflict may be a double–edged sword producing both desirable and undesirable outcomes (Ayoko & Callan, 2010; Jehn, 1997; Jehn, 1995). Specifically, management scholars have been interested in investigating the effects of task conflict within teams on team outcomes, for instance team member job satisfaction and team performance (e.g. Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997). Task conflict represents the perception of disagreements among group members about the content of their decisions and involves differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions (Simons & Peterson, 2000). The findings are mixed; on the one hand, scholars report that task conflict is beneficial for organizations and can assist in stimulating team performance (Jehn, 1994), but on the other hand, De Dreu and Weingart’s meta-analysis (2003) concluded that task conflict has a damaging impact on team outcomes. However, the meta-analysis also suggested that “conflict may have positive consequences under very specific circumstances, and we need to detect those circumstances in new research” (p. 748).

7 | P a g e

Yet, to date, little research has disentangled that transformational leadership is a multidimensional construct that has sub-dimensions, some of which will help to cope adequately with team conflict. For instance, transformational leaders provide support to followers, listen to followers’ developmental needs and concerns, act as mentors, and foster a supportive climate for growth (Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003; Bass, 1999). Besides, these leaders also help followers to become more innovative and creative by giving constructive feedback and encouraging them to think creatively and look at a problem from different perspectives (Shin & Zhou, 2003). But another sub-dimension of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, can possibly stimulate the emergence of task conflict (Zhang, Cao, & Tjosvold, 2011). Intellectual stimulation is the capacity to challenge followers to question assumptions, take risks, think critically, and identify and solve problems proactively (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012). Intellectual stimulation is shown when a leader facilitates followers to become more innovative and creative (Bass, 1999). For example in group decision making, the team members are given the freedom to voice their own ideas and to challenge those of the others during the decision making process. Returning to the task conflict definition, this process leads to different judgments and the contrasting interpretation of facts. Team members are intellectually stimulated, which may encourage them to express their ideas and convey their voices (Bass, 1990; Detert & Burris, 2007). Thus, transformational leadership encompasses different dimensions, some of which seem more relevant for the emergence of diverging views and related task conflicts, while others seem more related to helping the team to deal with conflicts adequately. In the next paragraphs I will work out these different facets of transformational leadership and relate them to task conflicts in teams.

8 | P a g e

perceived diversity can play in the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict within teams is investigated.

Further, this study examines the role of transformational leadership in the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes. Specifically the role of two transformational leadership components (idealized influence and individual consideration) is examined in enhancing the relationship between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance. The essential focus of the transformational leader is that the leader transforms the norms and values of the employees by motivating and empowering the employees to perform beyond their own expectations, enhancing employee involvement in the organization’s goals and aligning the employees to the vision of leaders (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopoulou, 2011; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). Furthermore, the leader also pays attention to the developmental needs of followers and supports and coaches the development of their followers (Bass, 1999). In addition, as a leader, he/she fosters a shared purpose that binds team members together and transcends their self-interest for the good of the team (Lim & Ployhart, 2004). Thus, the behavior displayed by transformational leaders creates a condition for task conflict to lead to positive outcomes, and inhibit the dark-side of task conflict.

9 | P a g e

transformational leadership on the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes and the moderating role of perceived diversity on the intellectual stimulation-task conflict relationship.

The paper begins with a review of the existing findings and theory relevant to the research variables: transformational leadership, task conflict, job satisfaction, team performance and perceived diversity; and this is followed by a developing research hypotheses. After explaining the research method, the results section is presented, followed by a discussion of the study. Finally, managerial implications as well as research limitation are discussed.

2. Theoretical Overview

2.1. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance

Teams have existed for a long time but nobody knows exactly when they were first used. From the biblical story, in Exodus chapter 18, Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, suggested to Moses that he divide the people of Israel into thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens and chose the best person as the leader of each team to solve conflicts in teams and to achieve better communication. In recent decades, organizations have implemented the Moses method to build a team as the basic unit of structure. The use of teams in organizations has grown increasingly widespread and ubiquitous (Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999) as a tool to generate creativity and innovation (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2000-2001) as well as increased organizational performance (Collins & Clark, 2003). Furthermore, starting in the 1930s as the beginning of systematic research on teams (Levine & Moreland, 2006), numerous scholars have tried investigating the factors that influence team effectiveness and team outcomes in organizations (e.g. Kang, Yang, & Rowley, 2006; Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008).

10 | P a g e

judgments and interpretation of facts,” and the latter as “conflicts about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style.” This research only focuses on the first type: task conflict within teams. Jehn (1995) defined task conflict as disagreements among team members about the content of the tasks being performed, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions.

Early studies on task conflict attempted to find the effects of task conflict. Generally, these studies find the effects of task conflict to be positive because it is related to performing tasks and is proposed to improve team work quality by promoting alternative concepts and ideas (e.g. Jehn, 1994; Amason, 1996; Choi & Cho, 2011). However, a meta-analysis showed a moderately negative correlation between task conflict, team performance and job satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This research also expects that task conflict is negatively associated with job performance and team performance.

Furthermore, the meta-analysis also suggested that task conflict may have positive consequences under very specific circumstances. This research is built based on the suggestion above. Specifically, this research proposes the role of transformational leadership dimensions, which can mitigate the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes. A substantial number of studies have documented that transformational leader behavior is an important factor in team outcomes (Wang et al., 2011). Spreitzer, Perttula, and Xin (2005) suggested that the transformational leader develops a vision for the future and mobilizes follower commitment to achieve results beyond what would be normally expected. He/she basically generates, broadens and elevates the interests of the team members to perform beyond the expectation, characterized by four dimensions: inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation.

Before the presentation of the moderating role of the transformational leader in relation to task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance, the transformational leadership style will first be described.

2.2. Transformational Leadership

11 | P a g e

Chang, & Chuang, 2013). They are required to lead and motivate both individuals and the team as a whole (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, & Allen, 2007). When leaders move the follower beyond immediate self-interests through idealized influence (charisma), inspiration, intellectual stimulation, or individualized consideration, this is known as transformational leadership (Bass, 1999; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). The transformational leader, also referred to as the charismatic, visionary or inspirational leader, emerged in leadership literature around 1978 when Burns introduced transformational and transactional leadership (Bass, 1999).

Transformational leadership has been suggested as one of the biggest factors to employee perception in the workplace and workplace engagement (Bass, Jung, Avolio, & Berson, 2003). Following this, leadership literature has established four dimensions of transformational leadership, namely inspirational motivation, idealized influence, individual consideration and intellectual stimulation (Yukl, 2012; Bass, 1999; Tims et al., 2011; Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013). Each of the dimensions is summarized below.

The first dimension of transformational leadership is inspirational motivation, which refers to leaders with a strong vision for the future based on values and ideals (Bono & Judge, 2004). The transformational leader communicates an appealing vision of the future to his/her followers in order to motivate them by providing meaning and challenges to their followers. Also, the leaders act to arouse individual and team spirit, as well as display enthusiasm and optimism to the followers (Yukl, 2012; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).

The second dimension of transformational leadership is idealized influence. This dimension reflects the leaders who have high standards of moral and ethical conduct, who are held in high personal regard, and who engender loyalty from followers (Bono & Judge, 2004). Bass et.al (2003) explained that these leaders are also consistent in conduct with underlying ethics, principles, and values, thus they are admired, respected and trusted.

12 | P a g e

leaders challenge their followers to see problems from different perspectives and help them to become more innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways (Bass, 1999; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).

Transformational leadership has become an astonishingly popular research topic over the past few decades. In recent years leadership researchers have accumulated a large body of evidence in support of transformational leadership and the outcomes of adopting this leadership style. Further, Judge and Piccolo (2004) explained that transformational leadership behavior has a positive impact on follower job satisfaction, follower leader satisfaction, follower motivation, leader job performance, group or organization performance, and rated leader effectiveness. Other outcomes of transformational leadership are the increased engagement of employees in their work (Tims et al., 2011) and higher organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Walumbwa, Lawler, Avolio, Wang, & Shi, 2005). Finally, transformational leadership is associated with employee voice (Detert & Burris, 2007) and learning culture (Nemanich & Vera, 2009).

2.3. The transformational leadership role in task conflict – team outcomes relationship Transformational leadership dimensions are related to task conflict in a complex way. For instance, intellectual stimulation is related to the emergence of diverging views, which means that it can stimulate the emergence of task conflict within a team (Doucet, Poitras, & Chenevert, 2009). Nevertheless, this relationship needs further research, particularly investigating under which conditions the intellectual stimulation – task conflict relationship will be enhanced or hindered. This research responds by advocating perceived diversity within a team. This aspect is explained in section 2.3.1.

Further, it is argued that some transformational leadership aspects can help to deal with team conflict, which leads to positive outcomes. This research proposes that two transformational leadership dimensions (specifically inspirational motivation and individual consideration) can create a circumstance for task conflict to positively generate team outcomes. This relationship will be explained further in section 2.3.2.

2.3.1. Intellectual stimulation and task conflict: Perceived diversity as a moderator

13 | P a g e

think outside of the box to become more innovative and creative. Using intellectual stimulation, the transformational leader can encourage the team members to get involved in task conflict situations, for instance by suggesting new ways of approaching problems, seeking different perspectives and solutions, exploring opposing opinions and reevaluating the status quo (Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009). As a result, intellectual stimulation by the transformational leader is likely to foster and encourage the divergence of opinions and positions and ultimately will relate to task conflict in teams.

Thus, I arrive at the first research hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1a: Intellectual stimulation is positively associated with task conflict.

Furthermore, a condition/circumstance which may enhance or hinder the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict is examined. As argued above, transformational leaders may encourage team member to explore new innovative methods of problem-solving by intellectually stimulating the team members to think outside of the box. By the exercise of intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders develop employees ‘problem solving skills and increase their interest in and awareness of problems and trying to solve problems in new ways (Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). However, the strength of the intellectual stimulation – task conflict relationship may vary due to the perceived diversity within teams. This research proposes perceived diversity as a moderator variable. Perceived diversity refers to members’ beliefs about diversity within their team (Hentschel et al., 2013).

14 | P a g e

Perceived diversity is an aspect of diversity which may drive individual interaction within a team and an organization (Allen, Dawson, Wheatley, & White, 2008). In a scenario whereby team members perceive each other as different, stimulating the emergence of different perspectives may also stimulate individual team members to develop different viewpoints and an increased likelihood for a wider range of opinions to be present, which will likely underline the perception that team members are dissimilar. In the end, it may encourage a further escalation of opinion. Accordingly, a team with a high level of perceived diversity is likely to have more task-related elaboration and a greater variety of opinions.

As previously hypothesized, intellectual stimulation may be associated with task conflict within a team (hypothesis 1a). It is also proposed that the strength of the relationship may depend on the third variable, perceived diversity within a team. In a situation when a team has a high level of perceived diversity, the intellectual stimulation-task conflict relationship is stronger. The intellectual stimulation by the leader in a high perceived diversity team will escalate the possibility of dissimilar viewpoints, perspectives and thoughts. As a result, the interaction of both intellectual stimulation and high perceived diversity will accelerate more task conflict among team members within the team. In summary, there will be more task conflict among team members that is intellectually stimulated by the leader in a high perceived diversity team. Therefore, I arrive at the hypothesis below:

Hypothesis 1b: Perceived diversity moderates the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict in such a way that that the relationship will be stronger when the level of perceived diversity is high.

2.3.2. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance

15 | P a g e

may influence job satisfaction and team performance. It is proposed that transformational leadership behavior may play a role in amplifying the relationships between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance by creating the right circumstances for task conflict to lead to favorable team outcomes. In this research, two dimensions of transformational leadership behavior become the focus as being the moderating variable in the relationship between task conflict and team outcomes (job satisfaction and team performance).

Task conflict is inherent to and is present in intragroup relations (Jehn, 1995; Medina, Munduate, Dorado, Martinez, & Guerra, 2005). It has traditionally been considered disruptive for teams, but scholars have argued that conflict can potentially contribute to team effectiveness (Huang, 2012). Prior research argued that task conflict can improve team performance through encouraged understanding of various viewpoints and exposing new ideas, as well as preventing premature consensus (Jehn, 1997; Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Those processes (for instance idea exchange and idea clarification) lead to setting clear task methods and task goals, which may improve team processes and team functioning (Putnam, 1994).

In general too much task conflict may generate an excess of possibilities and overviews, and as a result, teams may struggle to reach a coherent solution and consensus, and further will negatively relate to job satisfaction and team performance (De Dreu, 2006). In line with the previous research, therefore, two research hypotheses can be reached:

Hypothesis 2a: Task conflict is negatively associated with job satisfaction. Hypothesis 2b: Task conflict is negatively associated with team performance.

16 | P a g e

2.3.3. The moderating role of individual consideration and idealized influence

Further studies suggested the need to examine the conditions under which task conflict aids team effectiveness (Hulsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This suggests the need to investigate moderators, which could potentially avoid the opinions and perspectives of team members go uncontrolled (too much opinions and perspectives) and prevent the escalation of task conflict. It is suggested that transformational leadership behavior (i.e. individual consideration and idealized influence) may play important role and be a potential moderator to mitigate the negative effect of task conflict on team effectiveness or even can turn the negative effects into positive ones.

Individual consideration, as one of the dimensions of transformational leadership, emphasizes the extent to which leaders identify, understand, and address followers’ developmental needs and treat them uniquely by displaying a number of developmentally-oriented behaviors such as coaching and training to develop job-related skills and abilities and to foster self-confidence on undertaking a wide range of proactive tasks (Aryee, Walumbwa, Zhou, & Hartnell, 2012; Rafferty & Griffin, 2004). Further, through idealized influence, transformational leaders change followers’ motives and encourage them to consider the moral and ethical implications of their actions and goals (López-Domínguez, Enache, Sallan, & Simo, 2013). As a result, transformational leaders develop trust and interpersonal relationships within a team and induce team members to go beyond self-interest for the good of the collective group performance (Braun, Peus, Weisweiler, & Frey, 2013; Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).

17 | P a g e

within the team (Dionne et al., 2004). Also, when the leaders inspire team members to consider moral and ethical implications, the negative effect of conflict will be reduced and less tension. As a result, the interaction between task conflict, individual consideration, and idealized influence would reduce the tension and less stress within a team, and ultimately may result in more positive job satisfaction. Thus, I come to the next hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: Individual consideration moderates the negative relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction in such a way that that the relationship will be less negative or even positive when the team leader is highly displaying individual consideration behaviors.

18 | P a g e

Thus, I arrive at the research hypotheses below:

Hypothesis 4a: Individual consideration moderates the negative relationship between task conflict and team performance in such a way that that the relationship will be less negative or even positive when the team leader is highly displaying individual consideration behaviors.

Hypothesis 4b: Idealized influence moderates the negative relationship between task conflict and team performance in such a way that that the relationship will be less negative or even positive when the team leader is highly displaying idealized influence behaviors.

2.3.4. Examining a conditional process model

This research also examines a conditional process model which involves the moderation of the effect of intellectual stimulation on task conflict by perceived diversity, and the moderation of the effect of task conflict on job satisfaction and team performance by a different moderator, in this case two dimensions of transformational leadership: individual consideration and idealized influence. As has been explained, task conflict may result in negative job satisfaction and team performance, however, this research argued that two transformational leadership behaviors may reduce the negative sides of task conflict on job satisfaction and team performance only if the leader displays individual consideration and idealized influence behaviors. Furthermore, because this research utilizes different facets of transformational leadership and relate them to task conflict, it is argued that intellectual stimulation, a transformational leadership dimension, is related to the emerging of task conflict, and the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict is stronger when perceived diversity level within teams is high.

19 | P a g e

2.4. Research Model

Based on the explanations above, the research model depicts intellectual stimulation as an antecedent of task conflict with perceived diversity as the moderator variable, and the relationship between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance with individual consideration and idealized influence as the moderator variables. In Figure 1 the conceptual model is shown.

Hypotheses 1a is a direct effects model in which intellectual stimulation directly relates to task conflict. In addition, hypothesis 1b is a moderated direct effect model in which perceived diversity moderates intellectual stimulation-task conflict relationship. Hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b is also a direct effects model in which task conflict is related to job satisfaction and team performance, whereas hypotheses 3a, 3b, 4a and 4d are a moderated direct effects model (two-ways interaction) in which two dimensions of transformational leadership behavior moderate the relationship between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance.

H1a

H1b

Figure 1 the Research Model

20 | P a g e

3. Method 3.1. Participants and procedures

The study was undertaken across 39 teams in different companies in three different cities in Indonesia: Surakarta, Jakarta and Medan. They are mainly working on marketing and advertising agencies, event organizers, radio stations and publishing. The respondents were comprised of 140 employees and 39 supervisors/team leaders. Of the team members, 50.7% were men and 49.3% were women and of the team leaders, 61.5% were men and 38.5% were women. The mean age and tenure of the team members was 25.75 years and 23.24 months respectively. About 55.7% of the team members had a bachelor’s degree level of education, and the rest of the team members had a Diploma degree (21.4%), secondary education (17.9%), a master degree level (4.3%), or doctoral degree (0.4%). Finally, the teams ranged in size from 3 to 12 members (M: 5. 74, SD: 1. 65) and the team member response rate was 62.50%.

With the approval of the supervisors, the respective team members were asked to have their teams participate in this study. The research questionnaire was administered in 2 ways: paper-based and online. The team members and the team leaders were able to choose to fill in the questionnaire either paper-based or online. Data was collected using anonymous self-report questionnaires.

Data was collected from two sources: team members provided data on demographic variables, educational background and the data on all other variables except team performance, such as intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, individual consideration, task conflict, perceived diversity and job satisfaction. Team leaders/supervisors administered the data about team performance. Each team leader was responsible for and thus provided performance assessments of only one team.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Transformational Leadership (Administered by team members)

21 | P a g e

al. (2009) with a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1, ‘strongly disagree’, to 5, ‘strongly agree’). The following is a sample item from the intellectual stimulation scale (Cronbach alpha: .73): “challenges me to think about old problems in new ways”. The following is a sample item from the individual consideration (Cronbach alpha: .71): “Shows respect for my personal feelings”. The following is a sample item from the idealized influence scale (Cronbach alpha: .61): “leads by doing, rather than simply by telling”. The data from the respondents was aggregated to create a single team level score for each of the three subscales of transformational leadership.

3.2.2. Task Conflict (Administered by team members)

To measure task conflict, team members had to report the amount of task conflict in their team. The scale was adopted from previous research (Jehn, 1995, Ayoko & Konrad, 2012). This scale consists of 3 items with a five-point scale; anchored by 1 “None” to 5 “A lot” (see Appendix I). Participants were required to indicate the degree to which they assess task conflicts in their team. Sample item from this scale includes, “the disagreement in my workgroup is about opinions regarding the work being done”. The Cronbach Alpha of task conflict scale was rather low (.55). I will come back to this in the discussion section. The data from team members was aggregated to create a single team level score, which represents the level of task conflict in the teams.

3.2.3. Perceived Diversity (Administered by team members)

Team members were asked to indicate the extent to which 3 statements (see Appendix I) corresponded to their own perceptions of diversity in their team (Cronbach Alpha: .77). This scale has been adopted from Hentschel, Shemla, Wegge, and Kearney (2013) with a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1, ‘strongly disagree’, to 5, ‘strongly agree’). The following is a sample item from the perceived diversity scale, “When I describe my team, I automatically think about the differences among my colleagues”. The data from the respondents was aggregated to create a single team level score.

3.2.4. Job satisfaction (Administered by team members)

22 | P a g e

3.2.5. Team performance (Administered by team leaders)

The team performance scale used was a combination of several scales used in previous studies (e.g. Liu, Keller, & Shih, 2011; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). To avoid common method bias, the performance scale was filled out by the supervisor. The scale consisted of 8 items. The supervisor/manager was asked, for example, to what extent the team “met deadlines,’’ “was productive’’ and ‘‘was effective’’.

The leader of each team was asked to respond on a 5-point scale. A sample of the items includes, ‘The team members manage their time with you and other members of your company effectively’ and ‘the team members successfully manage project-related challenges or obstacles as they occur’. The reliability score of this scale was .81.

3.2.6. Control variable

I used three control variables, which were included in the analysis because of the potential effects on the main variables. They were age (in years), tenure (in months) and team size. The three control variables age, tenure and team size have been used in the analysis because they are considered to impact job satisfaction and team performance (e.g. Hunt & Saul, 1975; Sarker, Crossman, & Chinmeteepituck, 2003; Morales & Marquina, 2009; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Controlling these variables reduces the likelihood of confounding variables in the research.

3.3. Aggregation

The level of analysis in this research is the team level. Therefore, the level of the variables must be at the team level. While the team performance items that have been answered by team leaders are at the team level, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, idealized influence, perceived diversity, task conflict, and job satisfaction were measured at the individual level. Therefore, these items were aggregated to create a single score for the team level analysis. To determine whether team members’ scores can be reliably aggregated into team-level constructs, I calculated the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient 1 (ICC1), Intra-class Correlation

Coefficient 2 (ICC2) and mean RWG, which reflects the agreement in answers among group

members. The scores were respectively, for intellectual stimulation: (ICC1: .25; ICC2: .55; mean

RWG: .93), for individual consideration: (ICC1: .11; ICC2: .30; mean RWG: .89), idealized

23 | P a g e

RWG: .91), perceived diversity (ICC1: .50; ICC2: .78; mean RWG: .88), and job satisfaction (ICC1:

.09; ICC2: .27; mean RWG: .91).

4. Results 4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations of all variables investigated in this study. As expected, the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict was significant (r: .36, p < .05). This means that the more intellectual stimulation is given, the more task conflict is reported. Further, task conflict was negatively correlated with job satisfaction and team performance, but these relationships were not significant. Finally, as can been seen in Table 1, the control variables (age, team size and tenure) do not significantly correlate with any of the studied variables.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables (team level)

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Age 25.62 5.46 - 2. Tenure (months) 22.25 13.11 .77*** - 3. Team size 5.74 1.65 .27 .31 - 4. Intellectual stimulation 3.82 .38 .16 .09 .17 - 5. Individual consideration 3.75 .41 .16 -.06 -.06 .67*** - 6. Idealized influence 3.77 .37 .22 .12 .04 .36** .47*** - 7. Task conflict 3.36 .36 .02 -.06 .24 .36** .45*** .26 - 8. Perceived diversity 3.25 .59 -.05 -.19 .13 .44*** .49*** .18 .83*** - 9. Job satisfaction 3.90 0.39 -.12 -.17 -.25 .07 .23 .23 -.30 .09 -10. Team performance 3.96 5.55 -0.7 -.03 .27 .23 .14 .04 -.01 -.04 -.05

***. Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the .1 level (2-tailed)

4.2. Testing Hypotheses

24 | P a g e

hypothesis, two regression steps were taken. The first step, in which age, tenure and team size were entered, did not add significantly to the prediction of task conflict. As shown in Table 2, after controlling for age, team size and tenure, a positive relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict was found (β= .32, p < .05) was found, and intellectual stimulation adds significantly to delta R2. This demonstrates that a higher degree of intellectual stimulation relates to a significantly higher degree of task conflict within teams. Therefore, hypothesis 1a is supported.

25 | P a g e

Table 2 Results of regression analyses testing the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict and the perceived diversity as the moderator

Dependent variable Steps and variables Task conflict

(Step 1) Task Conflict (Step 2) Task conflict (Step 1) Task Conflict (Step 2) Task Conflict (Step 3) Step 1 Age .01 .01 .01 -.00 -.00 Tenure -.01 -.01 -.01 .00 .00 Team Size .06 .05 .06 .03 .03 Step 2

Intellectual stimulation (IS) .32** -.03 -.05

Perceived diversity (PD) .52** .52** Step 3 Interaction IS*PD .03 R2 .09 .19 .09 .72 .72 R2 .09 .10** .09 .63** .00 F 1.21 2.01 1.12 16.54** 13.61**

***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed)

4.2.2. Task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance: The moderating role of individual consideration and idealized influence

Hypotheses 2a and 2b respectively stated that task conflict was negatively related to job satisfaction and team performance. The regression analysis (Table 3) showed that task conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction and team performance, but the relationship is not statistically significant. Thus, it can be concluded that the hypothesis 2a and Hypothesis 2b is not supported.

26 | P a g e

transformational leadership behavior and task conflict in predicting job satisfaction. These interactions yield a nonsignificant effect (Table 3; β task conflict * individual consideration = -.13 ns; β task conflict * idealized influence = .02, ns.). These results do not support hypothesis 3a and hypothesis 3b.

Table 3 Results of regression analyses testing the model in which individual consideration moderates the relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction

Dependent variable Steps and variables Job satisfaction (Step 1) Job satisfaction (Step 2) Job satisfaction (Step3) Job satisfaction (Step 4) Step 1 Age .00 .00 -.01 -.01 Tenure -.00 -.00 .00 .00 Team Size -.05 -.06 -.04 -.05 Step 2 Intellectual stimulation .12 -.08 -.08 Step 3 Task conflict (TC) -.14 -.17 Individual consideration (IC) .22 .25 Idealized influence (II) .23 .22 Step 4 Interaction TC* IC -.13 Interaction TC*II .02 R2 .07 .08 .16 .22 R2 .07 .01 .08 .06 F .88 .77 .86 .92

***. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed)

27 | P a g e

conflict, individual consideration, and idealized influence contributed to the prediction of team performance. The last step was concerned with the interaction between the two transformational leadership behavior dimensions and task conflict in predicting team performance. These interactions yield a non-significant effect (Table 5; β task conflict * individual consideration = .20 ns; β task conflict * idealized influence = -.14 ns). These results do not support hypothesis 4a and hypothesis 4b.

Table 4 Results of regression analyses testing the model in which individual consideration moderates the relationship between task conflict and job satisfaction

Dependent variable Steps and variables Team performance (Step 1) Team performance (Step 2) Team performance (Step 3) Team performance (Step 4) Step 1 Age -.02 -.02 -.03 -.02 Tenure .00 .00 .00 -.01 Team Size .11* .10 .12* .14** Step 2 Intellectual stimulation .32 .24 .420 Step 3 Task conflict (TC) -.37 -.34 Individual consideration (IC) .28 .14 Idealized influence (II) -.04 -.04 Step 4 Interaction TC* IC .20 Interaction TC*II -.14 R2 .10 .14 .19 .24 R2 .10 .04 0.05 .05 F 1.25 1.4 1.01 .1.00

28 | P a g e

4.2.3. Examining the Moderation-Mediation Model using PROCESS

In this section, a moderated-mediation model Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes (2007) was examined which allows the size of the indirect effects to be conditional on one or more moderator variables. This research investigates the indirect effect of task intellectual stimulation on job satisfaction and team performance through task conflict, but that the size of this indirect effect depends on perceived diversity and two dimensions of transformational leadership. Specifically, I studied if the path from intellectual stimulation to task conflict is moderated by perceived diversity, whereas the effect of task conflict on job satisfaction and team performance is moderated by individual consideration and idealized influence. The SPSS PROCESS macro (model 35) provided by Hayes (2013) was used to analyze the model. Appendix B summarizes the results of SPSS PROCESS.

Based on the PROCESS analysis, the indirect effect of intellectual stimulation on job satisfaction and team performance through task conflict is not supported. In addition, the path from intellectual stimulation to task conflict is not moderated by perceived diversity, and the effect of task conflict on job satisfaction and team performance is not moderated by individual consideration and idealized influence.

In conclusion, as shown in Table 6, hypothesis 1a is supported by the regression analysis. Furthermore, hypotheses 1b, 2a, 2b and 2c, and 2d are not supported by the regression analyses. The following section will go further to the discussion, implication and research limitation.

Table 5 Hypothesis summary

29 | P a g e

5. Discussion and Conclusion

This research is a response to prior research on the task conflict-team outcomes relationship, which has shown that task conflict is negatively associated with job satisfaction and team performance. Specifically, this research investigates the role of different facets of transformational leadership and perceived diversity in relation to task conflict and team outcomes, in this case job satisfaction and team performance. It is argued that intellectual stimulation is related to the emergence of task conflict and that this relationship is stronger when a team has a high level of perceived diversity. Moreover, two transformational leadership dimensions are proposed to help the team to deal with task conflicts: when the team leader displays high levels of individual consideration and idealized influence behavior, the relationship between task conflict and team outcome will be less negative or even positive. In this section, the explanation and discussion of the results are presented, conclusions are drawn based on the findings and the implications for future research and managers are discussed.

The results, based on survey data, reveal that intellectual stimulation is related to task conflict. However, perceived diversity within the team does not moderate the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict. Furthermore, the data provides evidence that task conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction and team performance, but the relationship is not statistically significant. What’s more the data reject the hypotheses that two transformational leadership dimensions mitigate the negative effects of task conflict on job satisfaction and team performance. The discussion about the findings will follow.

30 | P a g e

Secondly, it was proposed that perceived diversity moderates the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict, which means that the strength of the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict may vary due to perceived diversity within teams. However, the data did not support this hypothesis (Hypothesis 1b). The hypothesis that stated that the interaction between intellectual stimulation and high perceived diversity would result in an increase in task conflict and low perceived diversity would result in a decrease in task conflict was not supported. This means that the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict is not contingent on perceived diversity.

Thirdly, the findings suggest that task conflict is negatively related to job satisfaction and team performance, however, the relationship is not statistically significant, thus did not supports De Dreu and Weingart’s meta-analysis (2003). The data also shows that two types of transformational leadership behavior, individual consideration and idealized influences, do not moderate the relationship between task conflict, job satisfaction and team performance. Following the findings above, the possible explanations for not finding support will be explained below.

Firstly, the findings suggest that perceived diversity did not moderate the relationship between intellectual stimulation and task conflict. It is likely that the level of task conflict within teams may be contingent on individual factors, such as personality traits. This means that team conflict could be either fostered or hindered when intellectual stimulation behavior interacts with individual characteristics. For example, it is likely that intellectual stimulation especially relates to task conflict if team members are extravert and as a result are keen to extensively discuss different opinions. In addition, task conflict may be promoted or demoted depending on the interaction between intellectual stimulation and organizational/team characteristics culture, for instance in a high goal-oriented culture versus in a low goal-oriented culture. This means that task conflict is more likely to result from intellectual stimulation in a high goal-oriented culture rather than in a low goal-oriented culture.

31 | P a g e

task conflict exists in the teams, it is a normal and natural parts of team process and team’s life. Nevertheless, the issue here is to clarify why task conflict is not related to satisfaction and performance and why individual consideration and idealized influence do not moderate these relationships. Possibly, these findings are influenced by the research setting and the respondents within an Indonesian culture, where work ethics are mostly influenced by Javanese culture. In particular, kerukunan (harmony) and nrimo (submissiveness) are typically the two Javanese concepts which can be found in most work behavior (Hess, 2001). These concepts may explain the non-significance of the relationship between task conflict and satisfaction and performance (and the non-significant moderation of these relationships by individual consideration and idealized influence).

As explained by Hess (2001), kerukunan (harmony) is referring to the necessity to acting in a way conducive to maintain of society through unity, while nrimo (submissiveness) is related to accepting everything without protest, laid based on Islam view that work hard is not efficacious because everything is determined by God (or known as takdir or destiny). Laying on these two concepts, although task conflict exists in the teams, eventually the team members are directed by the two concepts to keep the harmony and the unity, for example by answering “yes” instead of “no” because the “yes” answer is perceived will not disrupt harmony. Also, based on nrimo concept, team members are always accepting what they have been given and in what situation they are. As a result, any manipulations and treatments possibly do not succeed to affect job satisfaction and team performance.

5.1. Managerial Implications

32 | P a g e

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

I am aware that the research has some limitations that should be noted. There are some opportunities for researchers to further investigate the mechanisms and conditions of task conflict-team outcomes relationship, which ultimately contributes to theoretical and practical leadership, diversity and conflict theories.

Firstly, the number of teams, 39, is relatively low. For future research, I suggest increasing the number of teams. An additional limitation of this research may arise from using self-reported data from a single questionnaire completed at one point in time. Consequently, the data did not allow for causal interpretation and also there is possibility of common-method and source bias, which may have overstated relationships. However team leaders were asked to assess team performance to reduce this bias. Using different information sources for the independent and dependent measures may reduce the possibility of common method bias

Furthermore, given the cross-sectional design, the results cannot confirm causality between the examined relationships and not allow us to check the stability of these results over time. Finally, I conducted the research in general teams, without considering the specific tasks of the teams. Thus, for further inquiries, I advise testing the research model by choosing a specific team, for instance from the research and development, marketing or human resource departments.

33 | P a g e

Still related to the measurement issue, the conceptual level of the variables is rather problematic. The field data are actually at the individual level, except team performance variable. Because the level of analysis is at the team level, the field data should be aggregated. Based on the aggregation result, there may be a relevant issue due to some ICC2 have low values which

influence the result of the data analysis. The low value of ICC2 may be due to the low number of

teams as the research participant, as has been discussed above. For future research, when the level analysis is team level, it is suggested to use team level measurement, and the other way around.

34 | P a g e

Bibliography

Allen, R. S., Dawson, G., Wheatley, K., & White, C. S. (2008). Perceived diversity and organizational performance. Employee Relations, 30(1), 20-33.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organizational Science, 3(3), 321-341.

Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F. O., Zhou, Q., & Hartnell, C. A. (2012). Transformational leadership, innovative behavior, and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance, 25, 1–25.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership

questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. Ayoko, O. B., & Callan, V. J. (2010, June). Teams' reactions to conflict and teams' task and

social outcomes: The moderating role of transformational and emotional leadership. European Management Journal, 28(3), 220-235.

Ayoko, O. B., & Konrad, A. M. (2012). Leaders’ transformational, conflict, and emotion management behaviors in culturally diverse workgroups. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(8), 694-724.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organization Psychology, 8(1), 9-32.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

35 | P a g e

Behfar, K. J., Mannix, E. A., Peterson, R. S., & Trochim, W. M. (2010). Conflict in small groups: The meaning and consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research, 42(2), 127-176.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910. Braun, S., Peus, C., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2013). Transformational leadership, job

satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 270-283.

Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., & Allen, D. (2007). Multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 331– 346.

Choi, K., & Cho, B. (2011). Competing hypotheses analyses of the associations between group task conflict and group relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 1106–1126.

Chou, H.-W., Lin, Y.-H., Chang, H.-H., & Chuang, W.-W. (2013, July-September).

Transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of cognitive trust and collective efficacy. SAGE Open, 3, 1-10.

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of sell-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643-676.

Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. (2003). Strategic human resources practices, top management team social network, and firm performance: The role of human resources practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 740-751. De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship

between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83-107. De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the

effectiveness of organizational team. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309-328. De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,

and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749.

de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360-390.

36 | P a g e

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999, December). Teams in organization: Prevalence, characteristics and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30(6), 678-711.

Dionne, S. D., Yammarino, F. J., Atwater, L. E., & Spangler, W. D. (2004). Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 177-193.

Doucet, O., Poitras, J., & Chenevert, D. (2009). The impacts of leadership on workplace conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 20(4), 340-354.

Drach-Zahavy, A. (2011). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners: The role of team diversity, boundedness, and extrateam links. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 20(1), 89-118.

Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1438-1446.

Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173-1180.

Foote, D. A., & Tang, T. L.-P. (2008). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Management Decision, 46(6), 933-947.

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.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Kearney, E. (2013). Perceived diversity and team functioning : The role of diversity beliefs and affect. Small Group Research, 44(1), 33– 61.

Hess, M. (2001). Management and culture under development. Labour and Management in Development, 2(3), 1-22.

37 | P a g e

Huang, J.-C. (2012). The relationship between conflict and team performance in Taiwan: the moderating effect of goal orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(10), 2126-2143.

Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128-1145.

Hunt, J. W., & Saul, P. N. (1975). The relationship between age, tenure, and job satisfaction in males and females. The Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 690-702.

Huttermann, H., & Boerner, S. (2011). Fostering innovation in functionally diverse teams: The two faces of transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(6), 833-854.

Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801-830. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages

of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 223-238.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997, September). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530-557.

Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A contingency perspective on the conflict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242.

Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflicts types, dimensions, and emergent states of group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465-495.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroup. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

38 | P a g e

Kang, H.-R., Yang, H.-D., & Rowley, C. (2006). Factors in team effectiveness: Cognitive and demographic similarities of software development team members. Human Relations, 59(12), 1681-1710.

Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2000-2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening

the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 285-294. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (2006). Small groups: An overview. In J. M. Levine, & R. L.

Moreland, Small Groups (pp. 1-10). New York: Psychology Press.

Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004, August). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 610-621.

Liu, Y., Keller, R. T., & Shih, H.-A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management, 41(3), 274-287.

López-Domínguez, M., Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., & Simo, P. (2013). Transformational leadership as an antecedent of change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2147-2152.

Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 779-793.

Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423-1439.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, T. M., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancement and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.

Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Dorado, M. A., Martinez, I., & Guerra, J. M. (2005). Types of intragroup conflict and affective reaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 219-230.

39 | P a g e

Morales, C., & Marquina, P. (2009). Evidence of the role of age in team performance. A comparative study in Peru and Spain. Employee Relations, 31(3), 264-275.

Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 19–33.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107-142. Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation

hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.

Putnam, L. L. (1994). Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 284-298.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004, June). Dimensions of transformational leadership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 329-354. Sarker, S. J., Crossman, A., & Chinmeteepituck, P. (2003). The relationships of age and length

of service with job satisfaction: an examination of hotel employees in Thailand. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7), 745-758.

Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A

contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391-400.

Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703-714.

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(1), 102-111.

Spreitzer, G. M., Perttula, H. K., & Xin, K. (2005, May). Traditionality matters: an examination of the effectiveness of transformational leadership in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(3), 205-227.

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 121-131.

40 | P a g e

Tsai, W.-C., Chen, H.-W., & Cheng, J.-W. (2009, January). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking transformational leadership and employee work outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 206–219.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model research agenda. Journal of Applied Science, 6, 1008-1022.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515-558.

Walumbwa, F. O., Lawler, J. J., Avolio, B. J., Wang, P., & Shi, K. (2005). Transformational leadership and work-related attitudes: The moderating effects of collective and self-efficacy across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 2-16. Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational Leadership and

performance across criteria levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group & Organization Management, 36(2), 223-270.

Wang, P., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2007). Family-friendly program, organizational commitment, and work withdrawal: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Personnel Psychology, 60, 397-427.

Yu, K. Y., & Cable, D. M. (2011). Unpacking cooperation in diverse teams: Incorporating long-term orientation and civic virtue in the study of informational diversity. Team

Performance Management, 17(1), 63-82.

Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in Organizations (Vol. 8th). Pearson Higher Ed USA.

41 | P a g e

Appendix A: Questionnaire Intellectual stimulation

a. Challenges me to think about old problems in new ways. b. Asks questions that prompt me to think.

c. Has stimulated me to rethink the way I do things.

d. Has ideas that have challenged me to re-examine some of my basic assumptions about my work.

Individual consideration

a. Shows respect for my personal feelings. b. Behaves in a manner

c. Thoughtful of my personal needs. Idealized influence

a. Leads by ‘doing’, rather than simply by ‘telling’. b. Provides a good model for me to follow.

c. Leads by example. Task conflict

1. The disagreement in my workgroup is about opinions regarding the work being done 2. The disagreement in my workgroup is about ideas

3. People in my work unit often disagree about opinions regarding the work being done Perceived Diversity

1. When I am supposed to describe my work team, I automatically think about the differences (e.g. age, gender, educational level) among my colleagues

2. I am very aware of the differences (e.g. age, gender, educational level) among my colleagues

3. I sometimes think about the differences (e.g. age, gender, educational level) among the colleagues in my team

Job Satisfaction

1. I enjoy my work

2. My job does not make me bored 3. I am very satisfied with my work 4. I would like to continue to do this work Team performance

1. The team members meet specified project deadlines in a timely manner.