Search results

The aim of this paper is to present a model of the moderating role of emotional self-leadership on the cognitive conflict–affective conflict relationship and their effect on work team decision quality.

This paper draws upon extant theoretical and empirical research on the conflict, leadership and emotions literature works to argue for the role of emotional self-leadership as a boundary condition of the intra-team conflict–work team decision quality relationship.

Key to understanding why cognitive conflict sometimes leads to improved decision quality and sometimes it does not is the role of emotional self-leadership. Through emotional self-leadership, team members can actively anticipate, guide and focus their emotional responses to cognitive conflict and reduce their experience of affective conflict, improving team decision quality.

Identifying and explaining the moderating role of emotional self-leadership represents important progress for reframing emotion regulation and emotional intelligence into a new theoretical lens that may yield more meaningful insights into self-managed teams’ research. If empirically supported, this moderating effect would help explain the contradictory results obtained in prior empirical studies.

Practitioners can diminish or avoid the negative effect of the type of conflict that lowers work team decision quality and preserve the positive effect of the type of conflict that improves work team decision quality by identifying and implementing ways to improve a work team’s level of collective emotional self-leadership.

This paper extends the emotions, leadership and conflict literature works into the current research on self-directed work teams’ effectiveness by bringing attention to the moderating role of emotional self-leadership and calls for empirical research on this subject.

In terms of the body of knowledge examining work teams, several books and articles have attempted to address the underlying causes of why work teams fail. However, a scarcity of writings has focused on the issue of work team sustainability. The dictionary defines “sustain” as “to prevent from falling, collapsing, or giving way,” and “to endure.” This definition gives rise to the following question: “What are the factors that contribute to those work teams that ‘endure’ and that do not ‘fall, collapse, or give way’ during challenging organizational experiences?” In this paper, we will take an initial step toward answering this question by presenting a cognitive model of work team sustainability based upon established cognitive principles of individual‐level effort and performance sustainability. This model is designed to provide some practical insights into the long‐term team performance sustainability issue while also serving as a possible foundation for future research efforts.

The concept of “Thought Self‐Leadership” involves individual self‐influence through cognitive strategies that focus on self‐dialogue, mental imagery, beliefs and assumptions, and thought patterns. A plethora of studies from various fields including management, counseling psychology, sports psychology, education, and communication, address the effect of these Thought Self‐Leadership cognitive strategies on cognitions and behaviors. This research provides consistent support for the relationship between constructive self‐leadership of these cognitive processes and enhanced performance. The application of these cognitive strategies to the entrepreneurship domain, however, is sparse. We propose that the application of these principles to the entrepreneurial process offers the potential to enhance individual performance and mental states for both practicing and aspiring entrepreneurs. Propositions derived from the proposed framework are developed to serve as catalysts for empirically testing the applicability of Thought Self‐Leadership to the entrepreneurship context.

This article has been withdrawn as it was published elsewhere and accidentally duplicated. The original article can be seen here: 10.1108/02683949510075155. When citing the article, please cite: Charles C. Manz, Christopher P. Neck, (1995), “Teamthink: beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 Iss: 1, pp. 7 - 15.

We develop a multilevel model of emotional processes grounded in social identity theory to explore the role of emotion in transformational leadership.

This work is conceptual in nature and develops theory surrounding emotion in organizations by integrating theories on transformational leadership, emotion management, and organizational identity.

Transformational leaders utilize interpersonal emotion management strategies to influence and respond to emotions arising from the self-evaluative processes of organizational members during times of organizational identity change.

The conceptual model detailed provides insight on the intersubjective emotional processes grounded in social identity that influence transformational leadership. Future research into transformational leadership behaviors will benefit from a multilevel perspective which includes both interpersonal emotion management and intrapersonal emotion generation related to social identity at both the within-person and between-person levels.

The proposed model expands on the role of emotions in transformational leadership by theoretically linking the specific transformational behaviors to discrete emotions displayed by followers. While previous empirical research has indicated the positive outcomes of transformational leadership and the role of emotion recognition, work has yet to be presented which explicates the role of discrete emotions in the transformational leadership process.

While corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been gaining support for the role it plays in employee outcomes, such as organizational identification (OID), the view of CSR from a social identity perspective is underdeveloped. This conceptual chapter explores the role of social identity processes grounded in organizational justice to develop a model of CSR attributions and the moderating role these attributions play in organizational member outcomes. CSR is understood as the relational processes happening with stakeholders, and these relationships engage specific organizational identity orientations. The social identity process flows from there, resulting in CSR attributions including strategic, relational, and virtuous. Using social identity, organizational identity, and organizational justice, this chapter makes two specific contributions: a CSR attribution typology grounded in organizational justice and the moderating impact of these attributions between activated justice dimensions and resulting organizational member outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the linkage between leadership and sustainability. Recent scandals involving executive leadership have significantly contributed to the topic of sustainability becoming one of the most important concerns of the management literature in the twenty‐first century.

The authors’ approach is to review the extant literature and develop a theoretical model of the connection between leadership, in its many forms, and sustainability.

Most treatments of sustainability have focused on glorifying top executives for their sustainability efforts or vilifying them for their lack thereof. The authors claim that this perspective is oversimplified and flawed.

The authors develop several readily testable propositions to guide future research.

The practical implications of the authors’ model are focused on the engagement of employees at work: the philosophical perspective espoused in the model is one founded on empowerment and active involvement.

The model purports mechanisms through which organizations can develop more robust systems that ultimately can translate into more sustainable organizational practices.

The presented model is original in that the authors propose that broadening management development across all levels of organizations, along the lines of shared leadership theory, will facilitate organizational sustainability.

Proposes a new sort of learning process ‐ power‐point learning ‐ that goes beyond the traditional “teaching”. It involves a learning process that aims at satisfying the primary needs of the most important customers involved ‐ the learners. Suggests that one effective method of fulfilling these student needs is through a SuperLeadership approach.

This article describes the importance of fitness (chiefly exercise) for top ranking executive leaders and for their respective organizations. The authors discuss how fitness can contribute to stamina, mental clarity, ability to cope with stress and a variety of other factors that can affect an executive’s ability to lead. The authors support this premise by drawing on key research studies and actual accounts of top executives from a variety of business organizations. The authors feature information obtained from direct interviews with the year 2000 USA presidential candidates, Al Gore and George W. Bush. The authors view them as high profile models of how fitness can be given high priority for maintaining personal effectiveness for even the busiest executive leaders.

Seeks to understand how differences in national cultures impact on the understanding and meaning of the concept of self‐leadership and its application.

First, research at the intersection of culture and leadership and Hofstede's culture framework are reviewed. Then the main components of self‐leadership theory are introduced, and how Hofstede's framework can be used to re‐analyze them given differences across cultures is discussed.

While self‐leadership remains, in general, a valid concept, its understanding and application is likely to differ across cultures. Specifically, high power distance raises the importance of the symbolic value of tasks and correspondent covert processes of self‐leadership, high uncertainty avoidance makes more explicit the importance of non‐rational and intuition‐based thought processes, collectivism shows the relevance of social relations, femininity reiterates the importance of social relations and non‐rational processes, and long‐term orientation introduces the importance of making time an explicit element.

There is a need for further research on self‐leadership that investigates the roles of social and cultural relations, communication and language, multilevel interdependencies, and ethics. Empirically there is need for developing a self‐leadership instrument that is relevant and applicable across cultures.

This paper should facilitate appreciation of a contingency perspective of self‐leadership that requires different modes of application across cultures.

This paper helps fill a gap in the self‐leadership literature. In particular, it can facilitate greater understanding of this concept in cultures other than the USA, where it originated.