EI & Empowerment

8/18/2019 EI & Empowerment

1/30

Advances in Global LeadershipTeam Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Empowering Behavior: An

Investigation of their Relations to Team Climate

Dong Liu, Chi-Sum Wong, Ping-Ping Fu

Article information:

To cite this document: Dong Liu, Chi-Sum Wong, Ping-Ping Fu. "Team Leaders’Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Empowering Behavior: An Investigation of their Relations to Team Climate" In Advances in Global Leadership. Published online: 10Mar 2015; 77-104.

Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007008

Downloaded on: 31 January 2016, At: 11:00 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 93 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 473 times since NaN*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Dave Ulrich, Norm Smallwood, (2012),"What is Leadership?", Advances in Global

Leadership, Vol. 7 pp. 9-36 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007005Joyce S. Osland, Allan Bird, Gary Oddou, (2012),"The Context of ExpertGlobal Leadership", Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 7 pp. 107-124 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007009

Yan Liu, Raymond Loi, (2012),"Ethical Leadership and Workplace Deviance: The Roleof Moral Disengagement", Advances in Global Leadership, Vol. 7 pp. 37-56 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007006

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byemerald-srm:397875 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then pleaseuse our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose whichpublication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 booksand book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online productsand additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and theLOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

D o w n l o a d e d b y N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y o f S i n g a p o r e A t 1 1 : 0 0 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 6 ( P T )

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007008http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007008


2/30

*Related content and download information correct at

time of download.



3/30

TEAM LEADERS’ EMOTIONAL

INTELLIGENCE, PERSONALITY,

AND EMPOWERING BEHAVIOR:

AN INVESTIGATION OF THEIRRELATIONS TO TEAM CLIMATE

Dong Liu, Chi-Sum Wong and Ping-Ping Fu

ABSTRACT

Leaders’ emotional intelligence (EI), personality, and empowering

behavior have been heavily studied in the organizational behavior

literature. To date, the majority of research on EI and personality has

shown their significant influence on personal outcomes. It has also been

suggested that empowerment is a fundamental psychological mechanism

underlying follower outcomes. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid

to the effect of team leaders’ EI and personality on team outcomes and the

potential mediating effect of team leaders’ empowering behavior. In this

study, we developed theoretical rationale and empirically tested the effect

of team leaders’ EI and personality on team climate and the mediating

role that team leaders’ empowering behavior plays in this relationship.

The results supported most of our hypothesized relationships, that is, the

positive effects of team leaders’ EI and agreeableness on team climate

were mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior, whereas team

Advances in Global Leadership, Volume 7, 77–104

Copyright r 2012 by Emerald Group Publishing LimitedAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1535-1203/doi:10.1108/S1535-1203(2012)0000007008

77



4/30

leaders’ openness to new experience was not related to empoweringbehavior and team climate. Finally, theoretical and practical implications

were discussed.

INTRODUCTION

A plethora of research has been conducted on empowering leadership, and

its positive effect on employees’ outcomes has been well established

(Spreitzer, De Janasz, & Quinn, 1999). The consensus is that empowered

employees become more satisfied with their jobs and committed to their

affiliated organizations, and empowering leadership stimulates profound

changes within organizations (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Liu, Zhang,

Wang & Lee, 2011; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). As the business world

becomes increasingly competitive, more and more firms are using teams to

improve operation efficiency and response speed (French & Bell, 1999).

Teams have even been suggested as the primary means through which work

is done in organizations (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Liu,

Liu, Kwan, & Mao, 2009). Team leaders are expected to support team

members and enhance team performance as a whole. However, existing

empowerment research has focused mostly on empowered individuals’

personal outcomes and has not provided organizations with useful guidance

as to what type of leader behaviors may empower team members and what

outcomes can be expected at the team level. That is, the specific role leaders

play throughout team empowerment process, their emotional intelligence

(EI) and personality in particular, and their influence on overall team

outcomes have not been sufficiently examined.

Although both EI and personality are predispositions of a leader, EI is

treated more as abilities and is found to be trainable (Goleman, 1995; Nelis,

Quoidbach, Mikolajczak, & Hansenne, 2009; Wong, Foo, Wang, & Wong,

2007), whereas personality refers to the traits of a person, which are hard to

be changed and trained (Costa & McCrae, 1992). EI is about how people

recognize and manage emotions (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Hartel, 2002). It

has been recognized as an important factor for leadership effectiveness

(Goleman, 1998), influencing the social interaction and interrelationship in

the team beyond the impact of traditional personality traits. Law, Wong,

and Song’s (2004) study provided sufficient evidence regarding how EI is

related to but distinct from personality traits measured in the Big Five

dimensions. They found that after controlling for the effect of the Big Five

DONG LIU ET AL.78



5/30

personality dimensions, EI still accounted for more than 10% of thevariance in in-role and extra-role performance when peer ratings of EI were

used. Therefore, using personality alone will not capture all the effects of

leaders’ predispositions on their behavior. Nevertheless, surprisingly little

research has simultaneously examined the effects of both EI and personality

of the leader on his/her empowering behavior as well as team outcomes.

In this study, we furthered understanding of empowerment by examining

both team leaders’ ability (emotional intelligence) and personality traits

(agreeableness and openness to new experience) as predictors for their

empowering behaviors. We also developed theoretical arguments for andtested the mediating roles of team leaders’ empowering behavior on the

relationships between these predictors and team climate which, an

extensively recognized team-level factor affecting team outcomes, has been

demonstrated to cause such important team outcomes as innovation

and effectiveness (e.g., Anderson & West, 1998; Mathisen, Torsheim, &

Einarsen, 2006). Thus, we contribute primarily to the empowerment

literature by (1) investigating both leaders’ ability and traits – that is, EI

(ability), agreeableness, and openness to new experience (traits) – as

antecedents to leaders’ empowering behavior, and (2) demonstrating leaders’empowering behavior as the underlying psychological mechanism that

translates team leaders’ EI, agreeableness, and openness to new experience

to team climate.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES

Teams are commonly defined as the structured sets of people that pursue

collective performance objectives within larger organizational systems andthat require coordinated interactions to successfully accomplish relevant

tasks (Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010). Researchers have

found that teams are able to integrate personal input and, therefore,

generally overrun individuals acting alone, especially when performance

requires diverse skills, coordinated schedule, informed judgment, and

multiple accountabilities to satisfy rapidly changing customer demands

(French & Bell, 1999). Along with the research on teams, the past two

decades have witnessed a burgeoning volume of research on team climate.

Team climate is normally conceptualized as individuals’ constructiverepresentations or cognitive schema of their work environments and has

been operationalized principally through attempts to highlight individuals’

sense-making of their proximal work environment (e.g., Ashforth, 1985;

Team Leaders’ Emotional Intelligence, Personality, and Empowering Behavior 79



6/30

James & Sells, 1981; Schneider & Reichers, 1983). For example, James andSells (1981) defined climate as individuals’ cognitive representations of

proximal environments expressed in terms of psychological meaning and

significance to the individual. Team climate was more specifically

dimensionalized by Schneider (1990), who conceptualized team climate into

four specific dimensions – organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),

cohesiveness, norm, and potency – to represent individuals’ perception of

their team environment. All of these four dimensions reflect team members’

positive cognitions and feelings toward the team from different perspectives.

A cooperative or positive climate has been found to be positively associatedwith team performance (Keller, Julian, & Kedia, 1996), team satisfaction

(Gil, Rico, Alcover, & Barrasa, 2005), and team innovation (Mathisen et al.,

2006). Although much has been learned about the outcomes of team

climate, studies on its antecedents and especially the link between leadership

and team climate are still inadequate.

Team Leaders’ EI and Team Climate

Leadership and climate have been identified as ‘‘implicitly interlinked’’

(Gil et al., 2005), although the corresponding theoretical arguments and

empirical tests need to be further strengthened. As early as 1939, Lewin,

Lippitt, and White had found that different leadership styles of authoritar-

ian, democratic, and laissez faire influenced respondents’ perceptions of

climate and behavioral consequences. Later, Litwin and Stringer (1968)

noted that the general organizational climate was significantly differently

affected by the leaders with such disparate styles as bureaucratic, co-

operative, and productivity oriented; climates may even become increasinglydifferentiated over time because of the difference in leadership style.

Drawing on the interactionist-based climate theory (Schneider, 1983) and

vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership (Graen, 1976; Graen & Cashman,

1975), Kozlowski and Doherty (1989) argued that subordinates with high-

quality relationships with supervisors had more positive climate perceptions

and showed greater consensus on perceptions of climate, which were

meanwhile more similar to those of their supervisors than did subordinates

with low-quality relationships with their supervisors.

To date, EI represents a growing area of behavioral research and has beendemonstrated as an active catalyst for leadership style in the workplace

(Zeidner, Matthews, & Roberts, 2004). Salovey and Mayer (1990, p. 189)

defined EI as ‘‘the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to

DONG LIU ET AL.80



7/30

monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminateamong them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and

actions.’’ Davies, Stankov and Roberts (1998) conceptualized EI into four

dimensions, namely, appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself,

appraisal and recognition of emotion in others, regulation of emotion in

oneself, and use of emotion to facilitate performance.

EI may facilitate both team social exchange process and leadership style.

Emotionally intelligent employees in the organization are generally more

empathetic and able to communicate effectively with others, which can, in

turn, allow them to develop cohesive and supportive relation networks(Abraham, 1999; Thoits, 1989). In addition, high EI individuals are parti-

cularly excellent in cooperating with others while engaging in teamwork

(Mayer & Salovey, 1997). Accordingly, leaders with high EI seem to develop

better communication and cooperation with the subordinates in teams,

which can in turn foster good relationships between leaders and

subordinates. As the leader–subordinate dyadic relationship model for

team climate suggests (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989), the good relationships

within teams appear to foster positive team climate.

More recently, EI has been highlighted as a critical component of leadership style, especially for leaders working in team settings (Goleman,

Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002). Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, and Buckley

(2003) further argued that emotionally intelligent leaders may contribute to

teams in two ways: motivation and transformation. First, they are able to

motivate their followers to form positive attitudes about circumstances and

engage in pro-team behaviors. In this manner, positive emotions of team

leaders were found to enhance team members’ emotional states and provide

an impetus for teams to perform with more enthusiasm and engagement

(Sosik & Megerian, 1999). Second, emotionally intelligent leaders are able toexert transformational effects over teams. As argued by Sosik and Megerian

(1999), the four characteristics of transformational leaders (charismatic,

intellectual stimulation, individualized concern, and inspirational motiva-

tion) assume much similarity with the behaviors of individuals considered to

have high levels of EI. The transformational behavior and motivational

influence from high EI team leaders may be favorable to maintaining

positive team climate. Emotionally intelligent team leaders are more inclined

to stimulate intellectual interaction within their teams, show personal

concern to team members, and inspire the whole teams to strive for teamgoals. Further, George (2000) used the Mayer–Salovey–Caruso four branch

model of EI (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002) as a heuristic framework for

analyzing the importance of EI in effective leadership. According to this




8/30

model, emotionally intelligent leaders are able to facilitate such aspects of positive climate as excitement, enthusiasm, and optimism in the work

environment and to maintain a climate of cooperation and cohesiveness

through the development of high-quality interpersonal relationships. Wong

and Law (2002) found that middle managers’ EI is positively related to their

subordinates’ OCBs. Therefore,

Hypothesis 1. Team leaders’ EI facilitates positive team climate.

Team Leaders’ Agreeableness and Team Climate

Personality has been recognized as playing an important role in leadership

effectiveness. In personality studies, increased evidence is given to support

the Big Five approach to personality. The Big Five model is able to provide

a unified, comprehensive theoretical framework for scrutinizing the associa-

tion between leaders’ personality and leadership style (De Hoogh, Den

Hartog, & Koopman, 2005). Based on 14 samples of leaders from over 200

organizations, the traits from the five-factor model of personality have beenlinked to transformational leadership behavior (Judge & Bono, 2000).

Judge, Bono, Ilies and Gerhardt (2002) have confirmed the existence of

significant and generalizable relationships between each of the five

personality factors and leadership effectiveness and found that 16% of the

variance of leadership effectiveness can be explained by personality. In the

team context, Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998), using data

from 51 work teams, showed a significant relationship between team

members’ general ability and Big Five personality factors with team viability

and team performance. The above evidence suggests that leadershipeffectiveness in teams can, to some extent, be predicted from personality.

Therefore, the relationship between leaders’ personality and team outcomes

is worthy of more attention from organizational behavior researchers.

Agreeableness, one of the Big Five factors, refers to such aspects as

selflessness, cooperativeness, helpfulness, tolerance, flexibility, generosity,

sympathy, and courtesy and taps in to the motives for being altruistic and

maintaining positive relations with others (Digman, 1990). We selected this

factor not only because it is the most relevant to outcome variables in the

situations where collective performance and coordination are needed(Barrick et al., 1998), but also due to its unparalleled predictive power

among the Big Five personality traits for transformational leadership

(Judge & Bono, 2000). The measure of team climate used in the present

DONG LIU ET AL.82



9/30

study contains such facets as team OCB, team cohesiveness, team norm, andteam potency. The primary motivational orientation of agreeable leaders is

altruism (Wiggins, 1996), which is also a paramount aspect of OCB; thus,

agreeable leaders may personally display a positive model of OCB and, at

the same time, encourage teammates to engage more in OCB as well. Being

concerned with others’ interests and showing empathy for their conditions

are also the important characteristics of agreeableness, which can be

expected to strengthen team cohesiveness and team potency. In fact, Hogan

and Shelton (1998) have found that agreeable supervisors were prone to

creating friendly relations among subordinates and perking up theirpotential.

Moreover, agreeable persons tend to cope with conflict cooperatively and

collaboratively, strive for common understanding, and think highly of social

affiliations (Digman, 1990). Team leaders, who are high on the relationship

orientation, may thus win respect and trust from other team members. In

the long run, there will be good connections, cohesiveness, and potency

existing among team leaders and followers. Notably, high-quality leader–

member exchanges have been identified as a valuable predictor of positive

team climate (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 2. Team leaders’ agreeableness facilitates positive team

climate.

Team Leader’s Openness to New Experience and Team Climate

Openness to new experience, also one of the Big Five dimensions, represents

the tendencies to be imaginative, curious, original, and broadminded(Costa & McCrae, 1992). This trait has also been reported to serve as a

strong predictor of leadership effectiveness (Judge et al., 2002) and a

significant correlate of transformational leadership (Judge & Bono, 2000).

While there is no theory and evidence on whether openness to new

experience is related to overall team consequences, it is still reasonable to

anticipate a positive link between openness to new experience and team

climate. The conception of leadership is indeed inherent in teams (Yukl &

Van Fleet, 1992) because leadership cannot exist without the presence of

both leaders and subordinates. As a result, there is a good reason to expectthat openness to new experience as a strong predictor for leadership style

may exert influence on team climate as well. Leaders, who are open to new

experiences, often have a desire to see and experience new things, thereby




10/30

giving birth to creative change in teams (Manning, 2003). Creative teamchanges require all members’ cooperation and coordination, which can help

form favorable team climate. LePine, Colquitt, and Erez (2000) found that

openness to new experience of team members is significantly associated with

efficient team decision-making processes. Perhaps this is because open

individuals appear to engage in the type of self regulation that is necessary

for learning and resolving to change in novel situations (Blickle, 1996;

Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 1999). LePine et al. (2000) noted that

openness to new experience would be beneficial to the adaptability to the

changing collective task contexts because of its self-regulating effect.Furthermore, open people are more likely to be reflective and thoughtful

when they encounter new ideas (LePine, Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Hedlund,

1997). Open leaders would be expected to provide more intellectual

stimulation to followers, as openness to new experience is associated with

intellectuality or intellectance (McCrae & Costa, 1997). These tendencies are

all of value in enhancing team cohesiveness and potency in that the more

team leaders appear to be open, the more tolerance they will have for new

and unusual propositions among the team members, which will in turn

support the harmonious team atmosphere and stimulate teammates’wisdom. On the contrary, less open team leaders may be more conventional,

conservative, and uncomfortable with differences, and restrict unexpected

input and may be thereby less capable of generating a positive team climate.

Therefore, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 3. Team leaders’ openness to new experience facilitates

positive team climate.

Empowering leadership has been widely explored in the organizational

literature (e.g., Arnold et al., 2000; Chebat & Kollias, 2000; Conger, 1989).Practitioners and researchers alike have identified empowerment as a

construct warranting further investigation (Kanter, 1989; Spreitzer, 1995).

Two related conceptions of empowering leadership exist in the literature.

One approach focuses on the delegation of hierarchical power in the

organization and defines empowerment as ‘‘a practice, or set of practices

involving the delegation of responsibility down the hierarchy so as to give

employees increased decision-making authority in respect of the execution

of their primary work tasks’’ (Leach, Wall, & Jackson, 2003, p. 28). The

other approach that is frequently used in team empowerment researchdelineates a set of empowering behaviors applicable in the work setting of

teams. More specifically, this approach considers empowering leadership as

a five-category behavior based on employees’ perceptions, including

DONG LIU ET AL.84



11/30

(a) coaching, (b) informing, (c) leading by example, (d) showing concern,and (e) participative decision-making (Arnold et al., 2000). The latter

approach has been cross-validated in different organizations and found to

provide rich information regarding team leaders’ specific role in the

empowering process (Arnold et al., 2000). Therefore, we adopt the second

approach to study team empowerment process in this chapter and examine

whether team leaders’ EI (ability), agreeableness (trait), and openness to

new experience (trait) are able to affect team climate through team leaders’

empowering behavior.

Team Leaders’ EI and Empowering Behavior

As stated above, the link between leaders’ EI and effective team leadership has

already garnered extensive attention from researchers. EI mirrors the ability

to sense and understand one’s own and others’ emotions in social contexts

and to utilize related information to influence others through emotional

regulation and control. As such, it works as a critically important impetus for

effective leadership in the organization. In this sense, Goleman et al. (2002)argued that EI is salient in effective team leadership as emotionally intelligent

leaders are good at managing their own emotions and then building sound

relationships with team members over the process. To be specific, at the stage

of making team goals, emotionally intelligent leaders seem to be more skillful

in negotiating with teammates about the reasonable standards for team

performance, treating their subordinates’ suggestions with respect, and

making the team goals acceptable to all team members. Then, while imple-

menting team goals, teams will benefit more from having high EI leaders

because such leaders give individual team members more meaning and choiceon completing specific team tasks and making them feel confident and

competent in the process of dealing with these tasks together with other team

members. Such leadership behaviors at different stages of team activities

indeed reflect characteristics of empowerment.

Moreover, Spreitzer (1995) emphasized that competence, meaningfulness,

choice, and impact are necessary conditions for empowerment. The four key

aspects of EI – appraisal and expression of emotions in oneself, appraisal

and recognition of emotions in others, regulation of emotions in oneself,

and use of emotions to facilitate performance – are deemed important toestablish the strong relationships between leaders and subordinates (George,

2000; Sosik & Megerian, 1999). The strong leader–subordinate relationships

can help team leaders convey competence, meaningfulness, choice, and




12/30

impact to their followers. Over the teamwork process, emotionallyintelligent leaders are especially prominent in addressing competence and

meaningfulness, interacting with each of his/her team members, and

encouraging continued individual development given that they are excellent

in managing their own and others’ emotion (Bass, 1985, 1997; Kouzes &

Posner, 1987). In other words, EI enables leaders to empower team members

for their satisfaction, development, and high team performance. Overall, the

literature on EI has proposed that individuals described as possessing a high

level of EI own the characteristics that can trigger empowering behaviors.

Therefore,Hypothesis 4. Team leaders’ EI is positively associated with team leaders’

empowering behavior.

Team Leaders’ Agreeableness and Empowering Behavior

Big Five personality traits have been theoretically established and empirically

confirmed as important predictors of leaders’ behavior (e.g., Judge & Bono,2000; Judge et al., 2002). Agreeable individuals are generally altruistic, warm,

generous, trusting, and cooperative (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeableness

is negatively related to aggression and hostility behaviors (Costa & McCrae,

1992; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, & Teta, 1993), which hinder the

effective communication and perception of leaders’ empowering behavior.

Since agreeable leaders are usually warmhearted and cooperative, they should

be more likely to develop positive mutual relationships with their followers. A

meta-analysis indicates that agreeable persons are more likely to become

popular among coworkers (Barrick & Judge, 2001). Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, and Hair (1996) found that agreeable individuals preferred

interpersonal interactions that were oriented toward conflict avoidance and

team cooperation. Notably, positive interpersonal relationships and interac-

tions in teams appear to reinforce leaders’ authority and subordinates’

recognition of leaders’ exemplary activities, which are an indispensable part

of empowering behavior.

Moreover, agreeable people are concerned with others’ interests. This

may be a prerequisite to be able to understand subordinates’ perspective

and infuse their work with meaning – a critical feature of empoweringbehavior. Being concerned about others may also help get team members

informed of team information and involved in team decision-making

processes, which is indicative of leaders’ empowering behavior. So, highly

DONG LIU ET AL.86



13/30

agreeable leaders should be more likely to guide followers (coaching), havetheir teams informed of work-related news (informing), be concerned

about team well-being (concerning), and invite team members to be

involved in the decision-making process (participative decision-making).


Hypothesis 5. Team leaders’ agreeableness is positively associated with

team leaders’ empowering behavior.

Team Leaders’ Openness to New Experience and Empowering Behavior

Of the Big Five personality traits, openness to new experience is not

only the best predictor of artistic and scientific creativity (Feist, 1998), but

also a significant correlate of leadership (Bass, 1990). Individuals scor-

ing high on openness to new experience are characterized by traits like

creativity, imagination, unconventionality, autonomy, and divergent think-

ing (McCrae & Costa, 1987). First, creativity, a hallmark of openness,

appears to be a valuable skill of effective leaders in Yukl’s (1998) summaryof the skills of leaders in that effective team leaders should not only be able

to adhere to team goals but also endeavor to be creative in absorbing and

implementing the diverse opinions from team members. Open team leaders

are more likely to emerge as empowerment activators, because they are

more open and geared to the differences existing in the team (Goldberg,

1990; McCrae & Costa, 1987). In other words, team leaders can hardly

empower subordinates unless they are willing to tolerate the diverse

opinions and behaviors in the team. Further, close-minded individuals were

found to conform tightly to established organizational rules and rejectflexibility in the decision-making process (Costa & McCrae, 1992). In this

sense, leaders who are not open to new experience may show little tolerance

of subordinates’ involvement in making important team decisions whereas

participative decision-making is in fact a salient indication of empowering

behavior.

Second, since open leaders have a strong desire for changes, they may

naturally want their followers to understand and adapt to the transforma-

tion (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Two possible means by which leaders make

team members attuned to changes are coaching and informing, namelytwo of the five core components of Arnold and colleagues’ (2000)

conceptualization of leaders’ empowering behavior. Coaching refers to a

set of leaders’ behaviors that educate team members and help them to




14/30

become self-reliant, and informing involves disseminating company wideinformation such as mission and philosophy as well as other important

information regarding team or individual development (Arnold et al.,

2000). Leaders who score high on openness to new experience would be

expected to render more coaching and informing, as they want to spread

the information on change to get support from their subordinates.


Hypothesis 6. Team leaders’ openness to new experience is positively

associated with team leaders’ empowering behavior.

The Mediating Role of Team Leaders’ Empowering Behavior

Importantly, researchers have highlighted the pivotal role of leader–member

interaction in linking leadership to team climate. When leaders display

empowering behavior before followers, there will be mutual interaction

happening among them according to the role-making process model

(Graen & Scandura, 1987), which suggested an interactive process wherebyleadership may take effect in the work setting. Kozlowski and Doherty

(1989) empirically confirmed that the interaction between leaders of varied

leadership styles and subordinates (operationalized as negotiating latitude)

was able to affect the perceptions of positive cooperative climate in the

workplace. The interactive role-making process consists of three specific

critical stages: (a) role taking, (b) role making, and (c) role routinization

(Graen & Scandura, 1987). At the role taking stage, leaders try to get

acquainted with subordinates’ abilities and characteristics by frequent

mutual communication. The nature of the relationship between leaders andsubordinates will be finally ascertained either implicitly or explicitly during

role-playing. At this stage, leaders take action in sharing information with

subordinates, increasing their influence in decision-making process, provid-

ing them with authority and autonomy, and exhibiting concern and trust to

them (Graen & Scandura, 1987). These aspects of leaders’ behavior are

consistent with the five dimensions of leaders’ empowering behavior: (a)

coaching, (b) informing, (c) leading by example, (d) showing concern, and

(e) participative decision-making. Finally, the nature of the dyadic leader–

subordinate relations will be further reinforced through role routinization,which reinforces the aspects of leaders’ role-making behavior in the

subsequent interaction between the parties. Accordingly, we further argue

that the effects of team leaders’ EI, agreeableness, and open to new

DONG LIU ET AL.88



15/30

experience on team climate may be transmitted through leaders’ empower-ing behavior, which is embedded in the interactive process in teams.

Empowerment theory and research also suggest that leaders’ empowering

behavior contributes to team empowerment to the degree to which it affects

team members’ perception of team goal, competence, cohesiveness, or norm

(Spreitzer, 1996). The categories of team climate correspond quite well to

the team empowerment outcomes mentioned above. Team climate can be

enhanced when teams are empowered to accomplish their goals in the way

they see fit. Problems may occur if team leaders override teammates’ feelings

and impose personal priority over the others. Wheelan (1999) found thatteams are less likely to be cohesive if leaders reject or intervene excessively in

team members’ personal activities. A sense of empowerment is particularly

important in teams because the work output is achieved by collective effort.

Team leaders engaging in more empowering behavior tend to exert more

positive effects on team climate. Since internal disagreement inevitably

results in disputes among team members, teams receiving more empower-

ment are more resilient and more likely to maintain harmony and form

positive team climate. Given team leaders’ role in the team process (Kovach,

2002) and the empowerment effect on team outcomes (Barnard, 1999), it islogical to infer that leaders’ empowering behavior would be particularly

helpful for successful formation of favorable team climate. Moreover,

influenced by their own ability (EI) and traits (personality), team leaders’

empowering behavior should work as a bridge linking the leaders’ ability

and personality to the actual team outcomes. Therefore, we argue that team

leaders’ EI, agreeableness, and openness to new experience affect team

Team Leaders’ Empowering

Behavior- Leading by example

- Coaching

- Concerning

- Informing

- Participative decision-

making

Team Climate

-Team OCB

-Team cohesiveness

-Team norm-Team potency

Team Leaders’ Personality

- Agreeableness

- Openness to new

experience

Team Leaders’ Emotional

Intelligence

- Self-emotion appraisal

- Regulation of emotion

- Use of emotion

- Other-emotion appraisal

Fig. 1. Proposed Theoretical Model.




16/30


17/30

member evaluated the team leader’s EI, and the other member assessed theteam leader’s empowering behavior.

Measures

Emotional Intelligence

We used the 16-item scale developed by Wong and Law (2002) and cross-

validated by Law et al. (2004) through a rigorous process to measure team

leaders’ EI. A sample item reads: ‘‘My team leader is a good observer of others’ emotions.’’ One team member in every team indicated the extent to

which the items could characterize his or her team leader’s EI (1 – ‘‘to a very

low extent’’ to 5 – ‘‘to a very high extent’’). The internal consistency

reliability (coefficient alpha) of this scale was .84.

Agreeableness and Openness to New Experience

With regard to the two facets of Big Five personality trait, we used the six

pairs of adjectives that represent opposite meanings to measure agreeable-ness and openness to new experience (McCrae & Costa, 1987), three for each

of the two variables respectively. Team leaders were instructed to rate the

list of adjectives according to how they were at the present time, not how

they wished to be in the future, using 7-point Likert-type rating format that

ranged from 1 (conforming to one adjective) to 7 (conforming to the other

opposite adjective). Two representing opposite adjectives for openness to

new experience are ‘‘narrow-minded’’ and ‘‘open-minded.’’ ‘‘Uncoopera-

tive’’ and ‘‘cooperative’’ are two representing opposite adjectives for

agreeableness. The Cronbach alphas were .86 for agreeableness and .91for openness to new experiences.

Leader’s Empowering Behavior

Leaders’ empowering behavior was based upon the empowering leadership

questionnaire developed by Arnold et al. (2000), which consists of 19 items

of 5 dimensions – leading by example, coaching, concerning, informing, and

participative decision-making. This scale was derived from the research in

the team context. One team member of each team was asked to evaluate the

extent to which he or she agreed with the statements of leaders’ empoweringbehavior in teams. We used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1¼ strongly disagree

to 5¼ strongly agree) as the rating format. An example item is: ‘‘He or she




18/30

helps me see areas in which I need more training.’’ The internal consistencyreliability of this 19-item scale was .94.

Team Climate

We assessed team climate using an instrument developed by Schneider

(1990). The measure consists of eight items designed to reflect four

dimensions: team OCB, team cohesiveness, team norm, and team potency.

Each team leader of the sampled 93 teams was asked to assess the degree to

which the items could be typical of the characteristics of their teams (1 – ‘‘to

a very low extent’’ to 5 – ‘‘to a very high extent’’). An example item is: ‘‘Myteam members show concern for the well-being and development of the

team.’’ The internal consistency reliability was .91.

Control Variables

Self-reported team leaders’ demographics variables such as age, gender,

educational level, and tenure with the organization were statistically

controlled because team leaders’ empowering behavior may change with

their career span, gender difference, and knowledge reservoir (Arnold et al.,

2000).

Analyses

Although all the measures used are well established, we still conducted a

series of Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) to examine the goodness of

fit and discriminant validity of our five-factor (i.e., the two personality

dimensions, EI, empowering behavior, and team climate) model. Due to the

small sample size (n¼

93), we got a marginally acceptable model:RMSEA¼ .07, CFI¼ .89, NNFI¼ .88, IFI¼ .89. Further, the chi-squares

and other fit statistics also showed that the current model fitted the data

better than other alternatives such as a single-factor model in which all

constructs were combined into one factor (RMSEA¼ .13, CFI¼ .75,

NNFI¼ .71, IFI¼ .73), a four-factor model in which the two personality

dimensions were constrained as one factor (RMSEA¼ .09, CFI¼ .83,

NNFI¼ .81, IFI¼ .82). These CFA results provided sufficient evidence for

the discriminant validity of the current five-factor model.

We ran a series of regressions to confirm the mediating role of teamleaders’ empowering behavior according to Baron and Kenny (1986). We

first examined the direct effects of the independent variables (i.e., team

leaders’ EI, agreeableness, and openness) on the mediator (i.e., team leaders’

DONG LIU ET AL.92



19/30

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among M

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Age 43.70 5.45

2. Sexb 1.51 .50 .11

3. Education levelc 4.18 1.03 .16 .14

4. Tenure 12.15 5.03 .57 .17 .27

5. Openness to new experience 4.02 1.03 .21 .02 .17 .22

6. Agreeableness 5.49 .88 .12 .08 .07 .17

7. Leader’s emotional intelligence 3.91 0.41 .03 .16 .05 –.06

8. Leader’s empowering behavior 3.73 .63 .05 .06 .07 .16

9. Team climate 3.60 .45 .16 .04 .11 .11

a pr.05; pr.01 (two-tailed);b‘‘1’’ for female and ‘‘2’’ for male;cEducational level (1¼primary school; 2¼middle school; 3¼ technical school; 4¼high school/v

undergraduate; 6¼graduate school).

D o w n l o a d e d b y N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y o f S i

n g a p o r e A t 1 1 : 0 0 3 1 J a n u a r y 2 0 1

6 ( P T )


20/30


21/30

already verified (e.g., Davies et al., 1998; Law et al., 2004). Unexpectedly,however, openness to new experience did not correlate with team leaders’

empowering behavior (r¼.01, ns) and team climate (r¼.09, ns).

Table 2 shows the testing results for all of the hypotheses. Hypotheses 1,

2, and 3 posit that team leaders’ EI, agreeableness, and openness to new

experience would be positively related to team climate. The results shown in

Model 4 of Table 2 provide support for Hypotheses 1 and 2 while

Hypothesis 3 was rejected. Specifically, leaders’ EI and agreeableness had a

significant, positive relationship with positive team climate (b¼ .27, pr.05,

and b¼

.21, pr.10, respectively). On the other hand, openness to newexperience has a nonsignificant relationship to team climate (b¼.12, ns).

Next, we examined the relationships between the antecedents and the

proposed mediator. First, Hypothesis 4 posits that a team leaders’ EI is

positively related to their empowering behavior. The findings in Model 2 of

Table 2 support this hypothesis as the team leaders’ EI was positively related

to their empowering behavior (b¼ .22, pr.10). Similarly, the results in

Model 2 of Table 2 also supported Hypothesis 5, which proposes that a

team leader’s agreeableness would be positively related to his or her

empowering behavior (b¼

.25, pr.05). Unexpectedly, however, theproposed positive association between team leaders’ openness to new

experiences and their empowering behavior (Hypothesis 6) was not

significant (b¼.03, ns).

Finally, we tested the last set of hypotheses regarding the mediating role

of team leaders’ empowering behavior. Since both Hypotheses 3 and 6 were

rejected, the mediating role of team leaders’ empowering behavior between

team leaders’ openness to new experience and team climate (Hypothesis 7c)

was thus not supported. Then, as noted above for Hypotheses 1 and 2, team

leaders’ EI and agreeableness were significantly related to team leaders’empowering behavior, which satisfied the condition that the independent

variable is related to the mediator (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Kenny, Kashy, &

Bolger, 1998). The second condition that the mediator is associated with the

dependent variable was also met. The results of Model 5 presented in

Table 2 illustrate that team leaders’ empowering behavior was positively

related to team climate (b¼ .34, pr.05). When a team leader’s empowering

behavior was included in Model 5, the beta coefficients associated with team

leaders’ EI reduces from .27, pr.05 to .20, pr.10; and meanwhile, the

relationship between agreeableness and team climate became nonsignificant.The above results indicate that empowering behavior acted as a partial

mediator of the relationship between team leaders’ EI and team climate, and

a full mediator of the relationship between team leaders’ agreeableness and




22/30

team climate. Overall, the mediating effects of Hypotheses 7a and 7b weresupported but Hypothesis 7c was negated.

DISCUSSION

This study presents the first attempt to fill in a gap in the empowerment

literature by linking team leaders’ traits and ability simultaneously to their

empowering behavior. We also go a step further by connecting team leaders’

empowering behavior to an important team outcome – team climate, andinvestigating the potential mediating role that empowering behavior plays

in the team empowerment process. Our research examining the general

team outcome (i.e., climate) adds to the existing empowerment literature

because most previous empowerment studies had concentrated on either

intrapersonal outcomes of empowerment such as job satisfaction and

turnover (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason, 1997; Thomas & Tymon, 1994), or

interpersonal outcomes such as change-oriented leadership (Spreitzer et al.,

1999). In addition, as noted by Arnold et al. (2000), empowerment research

would make progress by exploring the effects of specific empoweringbehaviors of supervisors rather than focusing entirely on the empowerment

feeling of subordinates, because followers may emulate empowering leaders’

values, goals, and behavior and then transform themselves as well. This

chapter is an attempt toward such direction. The findings of this chapter are

also of value to leadership research and practice in terms of its research

design: that is, we used three sources to report information on key variables

so as to reduce common method variance.

Implications for Theory and Practice

Consistent with most of our hypotheses, the empirical results show team

leaders’ agreeableness and EI predict positive team climate, and their effects

are fully or partially mediated by team leaders’ empowering behavior. The

present study thus extends past trait leadership research by suggesting that

leaders’ personality and ability (EI) can be used simultaneously to predict

leadership effectiveness. For organizations, in accordance with the person–

organization fit framework (Cable & Judge, 1997; Schneider, 1987), ourresults imply that firms are able to exert some degree of control over the

team empowerment process and team climate by selecting the right team

leaders. Furthermore, EI literature indicates EI can be increased through

DONG LIU ET AL.96



23/30

training and even espoused as a revolutionary means to enhanceorganizational performance (George, 2000; Prati et al., 2003). Based on

our findings, organizations can, therefore, promote desirable team outcomes

by training team leaders’ EI to encourage empowering behavior even after

assigning leaders to teams. For team leaders, our results suggest that it is

beneficial for them to enhance their EI and empowering behaviors in order

to improve their leadership effectiveness.

Unexpectedly, we did not find the significant effects of team leaders’

openness to new experience on team leaders’ empowering behavior and team

climate. The result is contradictory to most of the past research (e.g., Bass,1990; Judge et al., 2002; Yukl, 1998), in which openness to new experience

was of strong predictive power for leaders’ behavior. The characteristics of

Chinese culture may need to be taken into account when exploring a reason

for this inconsistency in that our study was conducted in Hong Kong, and the

survey participants were all Chinese. Traditional Chinese values emphasize

harmony and discourage conflicts (Liu, Chen, & Yao, 2011). This aspect of

social behavior has been discussed extensively by social psychologists in

conjunction with studies as to conflict avoidance and conflict resolution

(Bond & Hwang, 1986; Bond & Wang, 1983). Conflict-stirring and aggressivebehaviors are thought to be avoided because they communicate interpersonal

hostility and damage mutual interaction. Studies have indicated that strong,

cooperative relationships, bolstered by social face and warmth, are the

foundation upon which Chinese people develop interpersonal relations within

teams (e.g., Tjosvold, Hui, & Sun, 2004). Team leaders scoring high on

openness to new experience are divergent thinkers (McCrae, 1996), display

independence of judgment and autonomy (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,

1993), and may be inclined to use unconventional methods to promote

aggressive changes within their teams (McCrae & Costa, 1987). New ideasand changes may also challenge the status quo and undermine the harmony,

which often results in conflicts among Chinese team members, because

Chinese have been more inclined to conform to the established norms and

avoid controversy (Tjosvold, Hui, Ding, & Hu, 2003). Thus, the behaviors of

open team leaders may give rise to anxiety, mistrust, and disagreement in

Chinese teams, which are in controversy with such traditional Chinese virtues

as conflict avoidance and harmony maintenance, thereby counteracting the

positive effects of leaders’ openness to new experience on empowering

behaviors and team climate. Future research may further investigate thispotential difference as a result of Chinese culture.

Consistent with previous research, the results of our study also show that

EI is related to, but distinct from, the Big Five personality dispositions. Our




24/30

results showed that EI predicts both team leaders’ empowering behaviorsand team climate. After controlling for related variables and personality

traits (agreeableness and openness to new experience), EI still accounts for

3% of the variance in team leaders’ empowering behavior and 5.5% of the

variance in team climate. As our research design has reduced the effect of

common method variances, it may give more confidence to EI researchers

concerning the potential utility of the EI construct in the contexts of teams.

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of the study should also be interpreted in light of its limitations.

First, in terms of its research design, as with the majority of other EI and

personality studies, this research utilizes cross-sectional data. Thus, despite

the theoretically inferred causal relationships depicted in Fig. 1, we can only

settle for an association between the variables. In particular, the direction of

the causality between team leaders’ empowering behavior and team climate

may be the reversed one: positive team climate may inspire team leaders to

display empowering behavior. Future research design may employ long-itudinal survey data or laboratory and field experiments to trace the causal

direction of the variables. Another issue has to do with the level of data and

analysis. In this research, the data were collected from individuals. Although

it is appropriate to ask the team leader rather than any single team member to

evaluate the overall team climate, different levels of conceptualization and

analysis of this construct may be further conducted if we can have the climate

measures from all team members. For example, the consensus and agreement

of perceived team climate by members within a team may be examined. This

type of design and analysis should be considered in further research.Second, some contextual and situational factors not included in our

investigation may moderate or mediate the established links among our

variables. Openness to new experience may be particularly effective in the

work environment with high dynamics (De Hoogh et al., 2005), because the

dynamic environment offers a high degree of challenge and opportunities for

change, which require new perspectives and novel responses. For instance,

Ployhart and colleagues (2001) found that openness to new experience

explained variance in charismatic leadership but only in more challenging

conditions. Additionally, leaders’ agreeableness may be less relevant forintrinsically satisfying tasks because the task itself provides positive feedback

and encouragement (Tobin, Graziano, Vanman, & Tassinary, 2000). Leader–

member exchange may mediate the associations of leaders’ personality and EI

DONG LIU ET AL.98



25/30

to their specific behaviors toward subordinates (Liden & Maslyn, 1998).Future research may explore the moderating and mediating effects of these

contextual and situational variables highlighted above.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the limitations discussed above, the findings of our study reveal

that there are behavioral implications stemming from team leaders’

dispositions (agreeableness and openness) and ability (EI) in terms of theteam empowerment process and collective team outcome (team climate).

While more studies, especially cross-cultural ones, are needed to establish

the generalizability of our findings, the results of this chapter show that the

disposition and ability of the team leader can help facilitate positive team

outcome via leaders’ empowerment behaviors. For future research, we hope

our findings have shed some light on the behavioral implications of leaders’

EI and personality to team outcomes as well as the complex nature of the

empowerment process in teams.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. (1999). Emotional intelligence in organizations: A conceptualization. Genetic,

Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 125(2), 209–224.

Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation:

Development and validation of the team climate inventory (TCI). Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership

questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leaderbehaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(3), 249–269.

Ashforth, B. E. (1985). Climate formation: Issues and extensions. Academy of Management

Review, 4, 837–847.

Barnard, J. (1999). The empowerment of problem-solving teams: Is it an effective management

tool. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(1), 73–84.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Barrick, M. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001, April). Personality and work. Expanded tutorial

conducted at the Conference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,

San Diego, CA.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. J., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating member ability

and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199805%2919%3A3%3C235%3A%3AAID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Chttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199805%2919%3A3%3C235%3A%3AAID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Chttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28200005%2921%3A3%3C249%3A%3AAID-JOB10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-%23http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1173http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1173http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.83.3.377http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.83.3.377http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28200005%2921%3A3%3C249%3A%3AAID-JOB10%3E3.0.CO%3B2-%23http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199805%2919%3A3%3C235%3A%3AAID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Chttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199805%2919%3A3%3C235%3A%3AAID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO%3B2-Chttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.83.3.377http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.83.3.377http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1173http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1173


26/30

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: The FreePress.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 19–32.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational paradigm transcend organizational

and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130–139.

Blickle, G. (1996). Personality traits, learning strategies, and performance. European Journal of

Personality, 10, 337–352.

Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese people. In M. H. Bond

(Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people (pp. 213–266). Hong Kong: Oxford

University Press.

Bond, M. H., & Wang, S. H. (1983). Aggressive behavior in Chinese society: The problem of maintaining harmony. In A. P. Goldstein & M. Segall (Eds.), Global perspectives on

aggression (pp. 58–74). New York, NY: Pergamon.

Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (1999). The relation between learning

styles, the Big Five personality traits, and achievement motivation in higher education.

Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 129–140.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person-organization fit and

organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546–561.

Chebat, J. C., & Kollias, P. (2000). The impact of empowerment on customer contact

employees’ role in service organizations. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 66–81.

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research

from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.Conger, J. A. (1989). The charismatic leader: Behind the mystique of exceptional leadership . San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and

practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO five-factor (NEO-FFI) professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: In search of an

elusive construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 989–1015.

De Hoogh, A. H. B., Den Hartog, D. N., & Koopman, P. L. (2005). Linking the Big Five-

Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic

work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 839–865.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor Model. Annual Review

of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality on scientific and artistic creativity.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1999). Organization development: Behavioral science

interventions for organization improvement (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human

Relations, 53, 1027–1055.

Gil, F., Rico, R., Alcover, C. M., & Barrasa, A ´ . (2005). Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction

and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 312–328.

DONG LIU ET AL.100


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0090-2616%2890%2990061-Shttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.52.2.130http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-0984%28199612%2910%3A5%3C337%3A%3AAID-PER258%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-0984%28199612%2910%3A5%3C337%3A%3AAID-PER258%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0191-8869%2898%2900112-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.82.4.546http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109467050031005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639702300303http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.75.4.989http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.344http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.002221http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.002221http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr0204_5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726700538001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726700538001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940510589073http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940510589073http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940510589073http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F02683940510589073http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-0984%28199612%2910%3A5%3C337%3A%3AAID-PER258%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-0984%28199612%2910%3A5%3C337%3A%3AAID-PER258%3E3.0.CO%3B2-7http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726700538001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F0018726700538001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.52.2.130http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014920639702300303http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0090-2616%2890%2990061-Shttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F109467050031005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2Fs15327957pspr0204_5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.002221http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.82.4.546http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1146%2Fannurev.ps.41.020190.002221http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0191-8869%2898%2900112-3http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.344http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.75.4.989


27/30

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The Big-Five factorstructure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY:

Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of

emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201–1245). Chicago,

IL: Rand McNally.

Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model in formal organizations:

A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers(pp. 143–165). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G., & Scandura, T. A. (1987). Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 9, 175–208.

Graziano, W. G., Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Hair, E. C. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal

conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 70(4), 820–835.

Hogan, R. T., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human

Performance, 11, 129–144.

James, L. R., & Sells, S. B. (1981). Psychological climate: Theoretical perspectives and empirical

research. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional

perspective (pp. 275–295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2000). Five-factor model of personality and transformational

leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751–765.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A

qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 765–780.

Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. J. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a

moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of

Management Review, 27 , 361–372.

Kanter, R. M. (1989). The new managerial work. Harvard Business Review, 67 (6), 85–92.

Keller, R. T., Julian, S. D., & Kedia, B. L. (1996). A multinational study of work climate, job

satisfaction, and the productivity of R&D teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 43(1), 48–55.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In

D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology

(4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1987). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary things

done in organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kovach, B. E. (2002). Predicting leaders and team leaders in times of great change. Journal of

American Academy of Business, 1(2), 356–360.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership:

Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 546–553.

Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct validity of emotional intelligence

and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3),

483–496.



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.59.6.1216http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.59.6.1216http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2FEMR.2009.5235507http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2FEMR.2009.5235507http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.4.820http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.4.820http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F08959285.1998.9668028http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F08959285.1998.9668028http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.85.5.751http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.4.765http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.4.765http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famr.2002.7389905http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famr.2002.7389905http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2F17.491268http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2F17.491268http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.74.4.546http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.89.3.483http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.4.820http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.70.4.820http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2F17.491268http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2F17.491268http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famr.2002.7389905http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2Famr.2002.7389905http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.89.3.483http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2FEMR.2009.5235507http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1109%2FEMR.2009.5235507http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.87.4.765http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.85.5.751http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.74.4.546http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F08959285.1998.9668028http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.59.6.1216http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F08959285.1998.9668028


28/30

Leach, D. J., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (2003). The effect of empowerment on jobknowledge: An empirical test involving operators of complex technology. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 27–52.

LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects

of general cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel

Psychology, 53, 563–593.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997). Effects of individual

differences on the performance of hierarchical decision making teams: Much more than

g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 803–811.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally

created climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–299.

Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A socialcognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on

creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 53(5), 1090–1109.

Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An

empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management, 24(1), 43–72.

Litwin, G., & Stringer, R. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Research Press.

Liu, D., Chen, X. P., & Yao, X. (2011). From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel

investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(2), 294–309.

Liu, D., Liu, J., Kwan, H. K., & Mao, Y. (2009). What can I gain as a mentor? The effect of

mentoring on the job performance and social status of mentors in China. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 871–895.

Liu, D., Zhang, S., Wang, L., & Lee, T. W. (2011). The effects of autonomy and empowerment

on employee turnover: Test of a multilevel model in teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 96(6), 1305–1316.

Manning, T. T. (2003). Leadership across cultures: Attachment style influences. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(3), 20–30.

Mathisen, G. E., Torsheim, T., & Einarsen, S. (2006). The team-level model of climate for

innovation: A two-level confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 79, 23–35.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter

(Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications.

New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer–Salovey–Caruso emotional

intelligence test (MSCEIT) user’s manual . Toronto: MHS Publishers.

McCrae, R. R. (1996). Towards a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts

for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality:

Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across

instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to

experience. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality

psychology (pp. 825–847). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Nelis, D., Quoidbach, J., Mikolajczak, M., & Hansenne, M. (2009). Increasing emotional

intelligence: (How) is it possible? Personality and Indiv

EI & Empowerment

Documents

Transcript of EI & Empowerment