Suk Bong Choi
Ki Baek Jung1
Seung-Wan Kang- 1College of Global Business, Korea University, Sejong City, South Korea
- 2College of Business, Gachon University, Seongnam, South Korea
This paper aims to clarify the impact of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. It also explores the relevant conditions that maximize the above relationship. Specifically we examine how intra-team conflict organizational diversity moderate the relationship between destructive leadership team innovation performance. Finally the three-way interaction between destructive leadership intra-team conflict organizational diversity is analyzed for the worst conditions to maximize the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. This paper used a cross-sectional design with questionnaires administered to 87 teams with 479 team members working in Korean manufacturing service firms. It applied a hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypothesized relationships including three-way interaction effect among destructive leadership intra-team conflict organizational diversity on team innovation performance. This paper provided empirical insights about how destructive behaviors of team leader hindered team innovation performance. The three-way interaction effects also revealed that the higher the levels of both intra-team conflict organizational diversity the greater the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. This paper demonstrates how team leaders’ behavior team organizational conditions result in discouraging overall innovation outcomes. This paper contributes to the innovation leadership literatures by identifying possible leadership type hindering innovation performance at team level the specific conditions their dynamic interaction strengthening the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance.
Introduction
Previous studies have analyzed negative leadership through concepts such as abusive supervision (Tepper, 2000; Fischer et al., 2021), bullies (Namie and Namie, 2000), derailed leaders (Shackleton, 1995), psychopaths (Furnham and Taylor, 2004), and toxic leaders (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). Leaders’ destructive behavior, including taking actions not aligned with the goals of the organization, has also been studied (McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Lipman-Blumen, 2006; Einarsen et al., 2007). Based on these studies, destructive leadership can be defined as a repetitive negative behavior by a leader that harms the organization by hindering its goals, resources, and efficiency as well as members’ motivation, well-being, and job satisfaction (Einarsen et al., 2007). This leader’s destructive and abusive behaviors also influenced a psychosocial work environment which in turn has been related to negative health outcomes of employee (Useche et al., 2019). This psychosocial work environment covers matters concerning both our work and all aspect of our working conditions including leaders’ behavior, leader-member interaction, and conflict and diversity situation among work team members. Thus, understanding effects of negative leadership style and work condition is an important clue for reducing employee stress and burnout, and eventually increasing their health and welfare (Sangal et al., 2021). In this vein, destructive leadership makes employees experience a negative work environment. These negative work environments will negatively affect the well-being and health of employees by increasing the workload and workaholism (Molino et al., 2019), sleep problems (Salanova et al., 2016). It also negatively affect psychological recovery, resulting in burnout and exhaustion (Derks and Bakker, 2014; Molino et al., 2019), and unnecessary intra-conflict situation (Jehn et al., 2008; Leon-Perez et al., 2016; Tafvelin et al., 2020).
Destructive leadership which is our main topic has the following characteristics. First, it includes various behavior types of destructive leaders such as physical, verbal, active, passive, direct, and indirect behaviors that hinder employees’ work motivation (Namie and Namie, 2000; Tepper, 2000). Second, a leader may misuse or abuse their power to harm the organization and its members. Their destructive behavior not only reduces member motivation and satisfaction, but also weakens organizational efficiency (Vredenburgh and Brender, 1998). We speculate that it profoundly influences employees’ innovative intention and eventually team innovation performance. Third, destructive leadership is systematic and repetitive, for example, behavior that is repeated every week, or over 6 months (Einarsen et al., 2003). Fourth, the leader’s intent is not a factor for consideration. Although they may have no intention of causing harm, their destructive behaviors can result from carelessness, insensitivity, or lack of leadership capability (Einarsen et al., 2007). Fifth, destructive leadership includes the violation of the legitimate interest of the organization which according to Sackett and DeVore (2001) is illegal, immoral, or deviant. For example, behavior that goes against the legitimate decisions, goals, or strategies of an organization can be regarded as destructive behavior (Einarsen et al., 2007). Additionally, national and international standards, laws, and contracts must be implemented by all members of the organization and infringing these regulations can be considered destructive leadership (Einarsen et al., 2007). Destructive leadership is being actively studied in the organizational behavior area. For example, Wu et al. (2018) addressed the mechanism of destructive leadership and found that employees may show to silence due to their feeling of role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload when they suffered destructive leadership. Furthermore, a high level of job complexity made the negative effect of destructive leadership even worse. Moreover, other study (Molino et al., 2019) found a positive relationship between destructive leadership and workload, off-work hour technology-assisted job demand (off-TAJD), and workaholism. In addition, they found that both workload and workaholism mediated the relationship between destructive leadership and exhaustion. According to Dolce et al. (2020), destructive leadership was related to exhaustion via autonomy. Moreover, they found that autonomy, cognitive demands, and off-work-hours technology-assisted job demand mediated the relationship between destructive leadership and recovery.
Innovation refers to the successful implementation of new ideas by members (Zhou and George, 2001), as well as the introduction of new products and services (Klingebiel and Rammer, 2014). Innovation performance is a part of business performance and makes a significant contribution to the survival and prosperity of the company. Previous studies have identified knowledge sharing (Hu et al., 2009), transformative leadership (Pieterse et al., 2010), shared leadership (Cox et al., 2003), creative self-efficiency (Newman et al., 2018), voice behavior (Guzman and Espejo, 2019), and openness and knowledge (Wang et al., 2020) as antecedents that positively influence and increase a company’s innovation. However, we believe destructive leadership negatively impacts team innovation performance based on various negative effects such as increased stress from the effected company performance, job satisfaction, positive self-evaluation, and well-being, exhaustion (Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Dolce et al., 2020).
Majority of previous studies on innovation have focused on positive factors increasing innovation at individual and organizational levels (Anderson et al., 2004; Crescenzi and Gagliardi, 2018; Newman et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2020; Kaya et al., 2020). These studies have discovered positive effects of leadership types with other positive antecedents of innovation. As leadership is seen as an important driver of innovation, many studies have actively conducted the effects of positive leader’s behaviors that increase creativity and innovative performance (Hughes et al., 2018; Ali et al., 2020). However, few studies have analyzed factors that hinder innovation, especially at the team level. Additionally, some studies have found that leaders do not show positive behaviors in stressful or crisis situations that ultimately lead to negative outcome (Brandebo, 2020). Hence, this study examined negative leadership styles and contexts that hinder team innovation performance. Destructive leadership refers to the leader’s systematic and repetitive behavior that negatively affects the achievement of organizational goals and exacerbates the team members’ motivation (Einarsen et al., 2007). Such destructive leadership continuously abuses the members of the team and negatively impacts their job satisfaction, motivation, and behavior (Schyns and Schilling, 2013; Brandebo, 2020; Mackey et al., 2021), and innovative behaviors, creativity and ultimately reduces innovation performance (Lee et al., 2020).
This study investigated the conditions under which destructive leadership hinders innovation and analyses factors that magnify or weaken these conditions. By examining the direct effects of destructive leadership on team innovation performance, we seek conditions moderating this relationship. In this sense, we bring together two important moderating factors from team and organizational perspectives. First, we postulate that the level of intra-team conflict has a negative impact on destructive leadership and innovation performance by increasing conflict and disagreement between members of the team (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). In other words, if the level of intra-team conflict is high due to interaction between team members, the team leader’s destructive leadership is expected to further reduce team innovation performance (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010). Second, this study analyzed the effect of organizational diversity as an organizational factor that affects team innovation performance. Organizational diversity refers to the degree of difference among team members in age and gender, as well as their different opinions, knowledge, skills, values, and principles (Dahlin et al., 2005). Recent studies have already revealed that organizational diversity provides various ideas or methods for problems that arise while working (Jehn et al., 1999; Horwitz and Horwitz, 2007). Conversely, it may also lead to conflicts while implementing organizational strategy and delays the decision-making process (Shemla et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2019). Therefore, we expected that the negative effects of destructive leadership on team innovation performance will worsen by level of organizational diversity. Furthermore, we analyzed the three-way interaction effects of individual and organizational variables such as destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity. Thus, the detailed and dynamic conditions that maximize negative effects of destructive leadership on innovation performance were identified through an integrated approach.
Theoretical background and research hypotheses
Employees’ attitude and behavior toward organization can be influenced by many factors which organizations have various contexts. Thus, the use of one theoretical lens is not sufficient to understand the organizational performance. For this reason, we used several theories for building the hypotheses of this study.
First, leader behavior strongly affects the organizational member’s attitude and behavior. Social exchange theory explains social interaction through the economic and social exchange process (Blau, 1964). Blau (1964) suggested trust as an important antecedent for establishing better relationships because social exchange relationships have voluntary and informal characteristics. According to the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964), organizational members who have received favorable treatment and support from the organization and leaders, have a sense of obligation to effort for the organization. In this vein, employees who received abusive supervision and unfair treatment by leader will have negative sense and emotion toward leader and organization. Therefore, employees’ trust, intrinsic motivation, and obligation toward the team innovation will be decreased. As a result, we assume that employees who experienced the leaders’ destructive behavior have negative perception and behaviors on team innovation activity (Hypothesis 1).
Second, threat-rigidity theory suggested that members, teams, and organizations exhibit rigidity or inability to act and do something new, in the face of adversity (Staw et al., 1981). Hence, it suggested that perceived social threat, as in relationship conflict, activates a stress reaction, which creates cognitive rigidity, defensiveness, closed-mindedness, and avoidance response (Carnevale and Probst, 1998; O’Neill and Mclarnon, 2018). This point is that conflicts among team members negatively affect team innovation because team members cannot make flexible thinking and new attempts. Thus, we can assume that in leaders with high destructive leadership, teams with higher conflict would have a higher pain among team members thereby decreasing team innovation performance (Hypothesis 2).
Third, we also apply the social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981) to address that organizational diversity moderates the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. Social categorization theory (Tajfel, 1981) explain that people do not feel prejudiced or attracted to heterogeneous groups because they categorize themselves by characteristics and those who do not. Similarly, people are attracted to others with similar characteristics (Byrne, 1971). Referring to the premises of the this theory, organizational members can be further categorized into smaller groups with regard to diversity elements such as age, gender, education, and experience (Telyani et al., 2022). Segmentation within a team based on a variety of factors can further reinforce the negative effects of disruptive leadership by increasing the negative attitudes and behaviors of team innovation by team members who have experienced disruptive leadership behavior (Hypothesis 3).
Finally, contingency theory postulates that no one best management method exists (Donaldson, 2001). Therefore, theorists who argued for contingency theory tried to identify the meet point of the organization and environment for high performance. Based on contingency theory, prior studies investigated contingent factors that could activate the negative or positive side of diversity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Richard et al., 2007; Wegge et al., 2008; Sung and Choi, 2021a). In this study, we highlighted the role of intra-team conflict and organizational diversity as important contingency factors that enhances or minimizes the effect of destructive leadership on performance (Joshi and Roh, 2009). If organizational diversity is high, the team split a group into subgroups. This leads to conflict and hinders team cohesion and commitment (Zouaghi et al., 2020). Therefore, we expect that both organizational diversity and intra-team conflict which are important contingent factors moderate the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance (Hypothesis 4).
Destructive leadership and team innovation performance
Destructive leadership offends members’ work life in the organization by making unreasonable demands or a mockery of them (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Destructive leadership increases negative emotions, feeling and attitudes among team members (Tepper et al., 2004; Erickson et al., 2015), causing stress and degrading their well-being. In such situations, the members’ job dedication and satisfaction decrease, causing them to put in less effort, thereby negatively affecting individual innovation performance and eventually reducing team innovation performance. The continuous destructive behavior of the leader makes it difficult for members to maintain long-term motivation for innovation (Aryee et al., 2007; Schyns and Schilling, 2013). Innovative actions based on job satisfaction cannot be expected from members who are less satisfied, committed, and motivated because of destructive leadership (Connolly and Viswesvaran, 2000).
Furthermore, members treated unfairly by destructive leaders feel threatened by interpersonal injustice (Skarlicki and Folger, 1997; Collins and Jackson, 2015), emotional exhaustion (Xu et al., 2015), and identity (Aquino and Douglas, 2003), while also feeling anger and frustration toward the team and the leader. Consequently, undesirable attitudes (Tepper, 2000; Duffy et al., 2002), such as reduced organizational commitment, increased turnover intention (Ashforth, 1997; Iqbal et al., 2021), and increased unproductive work activity (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007) may be triggered, leading to bad team innovation performance. Therefore, members who are tired of destructive leaders become more focused on controlling their emotions and finding their identity rather than trying to contribute to organizational goals. As a result, insufficient resources and efforts necessary to achieve innovation are put in, which negatively affect team innovation performance.
Members who have suffered great stress and emotional exhaustion from destructive leadership are evasive and passive to ease their psychological distress (Tepper et al., 2007). According to the conservation of resources theory, members adopt strategies to deliberately avoid contact or feedback to minimize resource loss in stressful situations (Hobfoll, 1989; Tepper et al., 2007; Whitman et al., 2014), which negatively influences team innovation performance. As a form of evasive and passive behavior, members engage in passive actions, including organizational silence, reducing work-related productive remarks, not reporting problems, and not proposing new ideas (Xu et al., 2015). That is, members tend to remain silent if the leader shows no interest in their suggestions to solve work-related problems creatively (Vakola and Bouradas, 2005). Constructive and diverse opinions of members in the course of job implementation are an important element for creating new ideas for innovative change and continuous improvement (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998; Ng and Feldman, 2012). However, destructive leadership that leads to the silence of members encourages intentional omission and neglect and eventually negatively affects team innovation performance.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Destructive leadership will have a negative influence on team innovation performance.
The moderating effect of intra-team conflict
Intra-team conflict refers to a state in which opinions, arguments, and interests clash between two or more team members on an issue (Wall and Callister, 1995; Shetach, 2009). The concept of conflict can be divided into task and relationship conflict. Task conflict refers to a state of conflict in which active discussion and personal excitement among members arise related to the task given by team (Pelled et al., 1999; Simons and Peterson, 2000); continuous task conflicts may lead to negative emotions about interpersonal relationships. Conversely, relationship conflict is the recognition of inconsistency and differences over interpersonal preferences, values, and personality differences, and involves negative emotions (Jehn, 1995; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). Previous studies have shown that normal task conflict has a positive impact on performance, while relationship conflict has a negative impact (Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; Hu et al., 2019; Downes et al., 2021). De Dreu and Weingart (2003) show that task conflicts have a positive relationship with team performance only partly, with an overall negative relationship with everything else. Thus, the impact of task conflict on organizational performance remains controversial and leads to mixed results (Arazy et al., 2011; Chang, 2020). Therefore, conflict within a team is subject to management, and relationship conflict in particular negatively affects team performance (Badke-Schaub et al., 2010).
Job autonomy, peer support, leader-member exchange relationships, and organizational support awareness have been addressed as organizational environmental factors that promote innovation (Scott and Bruce, 1994; Axtell et al., 2000; Janssen, 2005; Ramamoorthy et al., 2005). Previous studies show that innovative actions by employees were positively moderated by organizational support and relationships with coworkers (Kwon and Kim, 2020). However, if the relationship between team members is not good and conflict occurs, members risk losing motivation for innovation. Intra-team conflict is also a phenomenon caused by interaction between members, and the satisfaction or performance of members depends on the degree of conflict management by the organization (Jehn, 1995; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Jehn and Bendersky, 2003; O’Neill et al., 2013; Yin et al., 2020). However, destructive leaders negatively affect members’ psychological condition by continuously abusing them (Park et al., 2018; Ogunfowora et al., 2021). As a result, not only is the members’ immersion in their work reduced, but conflict between members cannot be resolved smoothly, eventually maximizing the negative effects of interaction of destructive leadership and team intra-conflicts.
Conflicts cause lack of communication among members and increase stress, incurring psychological unsafe in the course of completing their task (Suifan et al., 2019; Esbati and Korunka, 2021). Additionally, members become increasingly passive toward implementing given work and creative problem-solving (Nightingale, 1974; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Beitler et al., 2018). As previous studies have identified, relationship conflicts increased tension among team members, further hindering their innovation behaviors (Lu et al., 2011). Thus, we assumed that intra-team relationship conflicts which act as a psychological mechanism, causing emotional confrontation and abuse, profoundly hinder knowledge sharing and cooperation among members (De Dreu, 2006; Lu et al., 2011; Vinarski-Peretz et al., 2011). In other words, the higher the intra-team conflict level, the more negatively it will affect the team innovation performance. Therefore, the intra-team conflict level can be expected to further increase the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. Based on the above discussion, we established the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Intra-team conflict level will further strengthen the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. That is to say, the negative impact of destructive leadership on team innovation performance will be further strengthened if the intra-team conflict level is higher than when it is lower.
The moderating effect of organizational diversity
In the field of organizational behavior, diversity can be explained by differences in a variety of areas (Griggs, 1995) including race (Zopiatis et al., 2014), gender (Pinar et al., 2011), income and education level (Hsiao et al., 2015), length of employment, rank (Kim et al., 2009; Waight and Madera, 2011), and opinions, beliefs, and values (Dahlin et al., 2005). Many studies on organizational diversity have confirmed that it has both positive and negative effects on performance (Soni, 2000; De Meuse and Hostager, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2014). However, according to social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978; Cannella et al., 2015) and self-categorization theory (Turner and Reynolds, 2011), individuals are motivated to enhance their social identity and thus classify their team members into individuals who have the same characteristics as them and those who do not. They show favorable and positive attitudes toward those who have similar characteristics (Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner and Haslam, 2001) and a false bias develops between members. Furthermore, according to the similarity-attraction paradigm (Barsade et al., 2000; Hoppe et al., 2014), there is a stronger bond between people who show similarity in interpersonal interaction. Based on these logics, we speculate that the effect of organizational diversity will further amplify the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance.
In heterogeneous groups with high organizational diversity, members respond positively to those with similar characteristics, while perceiving those who are not similar as less trustworthy and uncooperative (Turner and Reynolds, 2011). This can cause conflict among members and reduce cooperative attitude for innovation (Mohammed and Angell, 2004; Zouaghi et al., 2020). Low level of team cohesion and frequent conflict among members due to high diversity may hinder the innovation process in various ways. For example, organizational diversity increases the differences in characteristics among team members, leading to the level of members’ satisfaction, cooperation, and communication in the course of completing team tasks (Kim and Song, 2020). This also increases the rate of turnovers and conflict and ultimately negatively effects task progress and internal motivation for innovation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998; Shemla et al., 2016; Homan et al., 2020).
Therefore, if the level of diversity in a team is high, members will not communication actively and they will not focus on achieving the organizational objectives led by the leader. Due to the effect of social categorization, teams with high organizational diversity have low cooperation among members and have a negative effect on the formation of cooperation-oriented norms within the team (Chatman and Flynn, 2001). These again reduce negative effects, undermining team efficiency and effectiveness, increasing the negative effects of disruptive leadership on team process activation. Additionally, by hindering teamwork and making it difficult to share information and knowledge among members (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Kim, 2018), organizational diversity contributes to further strengthening the hindering effect of a team leader’s destructive leadership on innovation performance. Furthermore, organizational diversity prevents them from overcoming the negative effects of destructive leadership (Smith et al., 1994). Destructive leaders often engage in destructive behavior due to their lack of capability in leading members, rather than pursuing innovation to achieve organizational goals more effectively (Einarsen et al., 2007). Diversity, when managed, is also a source of creativity and innovation, but the behavior of destructive leaders strengthens the short of diversity management. Therefore, diversity management will not be able to reduce the negative effects of diversity experienced by members. Furthermore, organizational diversity will amplify the negative impact on innovation by interacting with destructive leadership. Based on the above discussion, we established the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Organizational diversity will further strengthen the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. That is to say, the negative impact of destructive leadership on team innovation performance will be further strengthened if the level of organizational diversity is higher than when it is lower.
Integrated model: Three-way interaction
Based on the above discussions, we hypothesized that intra-team conflict and organizational diversity mutually interact and negatively influence team innovation performance and that they interact with destructive leadership and further reduce team innovation performance. In other words, we anticipated that the organizational diversity interacts with destructive leadership and intra-team conflict negatively influences team innovation performance. As mentioned earlier, in relation to the moderating effect of organizational diversity, a team with a high level of organizational diversity interacts with destructive leadership and escalates the negative effect of intra-team conflict on team innovation performance by decreasing team cohesion and delaying decision-making on implementation of innovative problem-solving trial.
Specifically, intra-team conflict not only weakens trust among members, but also reduces organizational commitment, bringing about a negative attitude in members toward the organization and their work. Therefore, the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance will change depending on the intra-team conflict level. Furthermore, if organizational diversity at the team level is high as well, the team’s cohesion and trust will be weakened, further strengthening the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. In other words, the higher the organizational diversity, the more the negative effects of intra-team conflict and destructive leadership. Similarly, if organizational diversity exists within the team, members go through the social classification process and become biased, thereby weakening team cohesion, collaboration, and eventually innovation (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998; Shemla et al., 2016; Kim, 2018). Furthermore, if there is a high level of conflict among team members, such negative effects of organizational diversity will be even greater. In other words, if the level of intra-team conflict and organizational diversity are simultaneously high, members will not be able to cooperate and the negative effects of destructive leadership (innovation performance) will increase due to the stress caused by conflict and diversity. Therefore, the following hypothesis was established.
Hypothesis 4 (H4). The intra-team conflict and organizational diversity will have a moderating effect on the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. That is to say, when both the intra-team conflict level and organizational diversity are high, the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance will become more negative.
The hypothesized research model is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Hypothesized research model. *Three-way interaction (H4).
Methodology
Data collection and sample characteristics
To conduct an empirical analysis, we collected data from Korean firms. Data collection for this study was conducted through an online and offline questionnaire. To carry out the online and offline survey procedure, we collected the contact information of each team leader in advance. We tried to ensure anonymity in the course of survey. In the first step, we contacted the team leader to explain the purpose of the survey. In the second step, when we obtained their permission, we requested to ensure anonymity and consider the diversity of samplings such as gender, tenure, and age. Next, we distributed anonymous online and offline questionnaires to employees. Participants were explained through the purpose and procedures of the survey and the benefits and disadvantages that may arise from participating. An informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Moreover, we guided them to have the freedom to withdraw from the survey at any time. Based on their acceptance, we collected data from 95 teams (460 team members), of which 87 teams (429 team members) provided valid responses that were used for this study. The proper sample size in this research has followed that of previous studies published in main journals of this filed. The sample size was determined by referring to prior studies which are similar to the subject of this study such as team-level study (Kipkosgei et al., 2020), team innovation (Liang et al., 2019), leadership and team innovation (Tang et al., 2020), innovative behavior (Choi et al., 2016; Saeed et al., 2018), and creativity study (Zhang and Bartol, 2010). Thus, we confirmed that the number of samples used in this study was proper for empirical analysis. The demographic characteristics of the respondents are as follows. Each team comprised a minimum of four and a maximum of nine members. The average size of the team was 4.93 (SD = 1.45). Among the 429 respondents, 91.4% were male and 8.6% were female. The average age of the respondents was 40.32 (SD = 8.06) and average tenure was 13.66 (SD = 8.59).
Measures
The questionnaire used in this study was originally prepared in English and translated into Korean. We followed Brislin’s (1980) back translation procedure. A professional translator translated the original version into Korean, which was then back-translated into English by a bilingual scholar who had no prior knowledge of the objectives of the study and had not seen the original survey.
Destructive leadership
Destructive leadership is defined as leadership in which the leader continuously manages the members in an abusive supervision. Leadership was measured by employees’ perceptions of their team leader behavior. In this study, leaders refer to those who have the authority to evaluate employees’ performance such as department head, team manager, and supervisors. We used the five items that were used by Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) (see Appendix A). This measurement was based on Tepper’s (2000) abusive supervision measures. Mitchell and Ambrose (2007) further developed by focusing on active interpersonal abuse by the supervisor (e.g., “ridicules me” and “tells me my thoughts and feelings are stupid”). Because the active dimension is more consistent with our research interest, we used this Mitchell and Ambrose (2007)’ 5 items version as our indicator of destructive leadership. Sample items include the following: “My team leader ridicules me.” and “My team leader puts me down in front of others.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.879.
Intra-team conflict
Intra-team conflict is defined as relational conflict including negative emotions, recognizing inconsistencies and confrontations on interpersonal preferences, values, and differences in personality outside of work (Jehn, 1995). We used the four items that were developed by Jehn (1995). Sample items include: “Our team tends to have personality conflicts between members” and “Our team tends to have emotional conflicts between members.” The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.904.
Organizational diversity
Organizational diversity refers to the diversity of members’ gender, age, education level, and tenure. The combined measure of diversity was created by calculating prior study (Schippers et al., 2003). Standard deviation was used for the age and tenure of the members (Bedeian and Mossholder, 2000; Harrison et al., 2002) and gender was used as the proportion of minority members in the team (Kanter, 1977; Pelled, 1996). Education level was calculated according to the calculation method of Blau’s index (Blau, 1977). Organizational diversity index ranged also from 0 to 1, where a higher score indicated a greater distribution of demographic characteristics within the team, thus indicating higher levels of diversity. For the sample, organizational diversity ranged from 0.01 to 0.64 (M = 0.28, SD = 0.13).
Team innovation performance
Team innovation performance is defined as the level of effort by which team members perform work efficiently to achieve goals and to practice innovative actions (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004). We used the four items developed by Pirola-Merlo and Mann (2004). Sample items include the following: “My team’s recent output is new” and “My team’s recent output is creative.” We aggregated the responses of members to use individual-level variables as team-level group variables. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.887.
Control variables
The control variables included the team members’ average marital status, wage, job type and position, and team size, which could affect innovation performance (Katz, 1982; Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Brown and Eisenhard, 1995). The control variables were used at the team level.
Results
Preliminary analysis
Since all data were collected at the same source, it could have resulted in the common method bias (CMB), leading to false internal consistency and potentially misleading results. Thus, to assess the effect of common method variance, we followed the recommendation by Podsakoff et al. (2003) and conducted Harman’s single-factor test by loading all the items of the study constructs into an exploratory factor analysis. The results indicated that no single factor explained more than 28% of the covariance among the variables. Thus, it was concluded that CMB did not significantly alter the validity of the study results.
To analyze the respondents’ individual-level data at the team level, the within-group agreement rWG(J) index (James et al., 1993) was used to aggregate responses. To further analyze variation in the data, individual responses were matched to team membership by calculating interclass correlation coefficients (ICC): ICC (1) and (2). Then, the hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. A rWG(J) index value larger than 0.70 is considered to represent a satisfactory agreement within a group (Bliese, 2000). ICC (1) was used to measure the inter-respondent reliability, with a range of 0.05–0.30 or statistical significance considered adequate. ICC (2) assessed the mean reliability of a group; previous literature suggested that values of 0.70 or larger are acceptable and values between 0.50 and 0.70 are marginally acceptable (Kipkosgei et al., 2020). Table 1 presents the rWG(J), ICC (1) and (2) results. All values were above the acceptable standard cut-off values, indicating that all values were within the acceptable range.
Table 1. rWG(J), ICC (1), ICC (2) of all team-level variables.
Correlation and reliability analyses
We conducted a correlation analysis to investigate the relationship between the measured variables and their direction. The means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations among the key variables are shown in Table 2. As can be seen, there was a correlation (p < 0.001) between destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and team innovation performance. Team-level variables are mean centered to solve the multicollinearity problem (Aiken et al., 1991). The maximum variance inflated index of the key variables is 3.11. Hence, there was no multicollinearity problem (Hocking and Pendleton, 1983).
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliabilities.
Hypothesis testing
We used hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypothesized relationships (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2005; Hoch et al., 2010). The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are shown in Table 3. Hypothesis 1 stated that destructive leadership would have a negative effect on team innovation performance. In Model 2, destructive leadership was found to negatively affect team innovation performance (β = −0.529, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. As shown in Model 4, the interaction term of destructive leadership and intra-team conflict was negatively related to team innovation performance (β = −0.260, p < 0.01). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported. However, the interaction term of destructive leadership and organizational diversity did not significantly affect team innovation performance (β = −0.097, n.s.). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. To test Hypothesis 4, we studied the three-way interaction of destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity for predicting team innovation performance in the last step of the moderated hierarchical regression model. Here, with β = −0.279 (p < 0.01), we found a significant negative effect in predicting team innovation performance.
Table 3. Summary of regression analysis results.
As shown in Figure 2, when destructive leadership and intra-team conflict are high, the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance is stronger. Moreover, as shown in Figure 3, when destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity are high, the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance is stronger than whey they are low. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.
Figure 2. Moderating effect of intra-team conflict on the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance.
Figure 3. Three-way interaction effect of destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity on team innovation performance.
Discussion
This study aimed to examine the interaction effects of intra-team conflict and organization diversity on the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. The core findings of our empirical analysis can be summarized as follows. First, we found that destructive leadership negatively influenced team innovation performance. Second, the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance was strengthened when intra-team conflict level was high. Third, organizational diversity did not significantly strengthen the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. Fourth, the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance was more negative when both intra-team conflict and organizational diversity were high. A previous study on leadership with negative effects, such as destructive leadership, show that the destructive behaviors of leaders negatively affect not only innovation performance, but also well-being, job satisfaction, and corporate performance (Schyns and Schilling, 2013). In this context, this study sought to identify the specific conditions or situations in which the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance is maximized. Our results show that intra-team conflict is a moderating variable that increases the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. However, organizational diversity was shown to not have moderating effects. Analysis using the three-way interaction model shows that the negative effect of destructive leadership on the team innovation performance was found to be strongest when both the intra-team conflict level and organizational diversity are high.
Theoretical contributions
Based on the empirical analysis of this study, the following theoretical implications were derived. First, previous research on destructive leadership have generally focused on verifying its negative effects but have not been able to draw a clear conclusion about the relationship between destructive leadership and organizational performance (Detert et al., 2007; De Hoogh and Den Hartog, 2008). In this vein, our results also confirm that social exchange theory was worked in explaining the negative relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance. Therefore, we have contributed by extending it to leadership study and Korean workers context. Recent research indicates that a more systematic study is needed on the extent of the effect of destructive leadership on individual or team performance (Kellerman, 2004; Kelloway et al., 2005). Therefore, this study focused on exploring factors that amplify the negative effect of destructive leadership, taking into consideration the possibility that the effects of destructive leadership on performance may vary depending on complex internal and external characteristics of the organization. Our results confirm that the negative effects of destructive leadership are strengthened when members are exposed to conflict situations within the team. The results of this study are consistent with the demands of previous studies to focus on the importance of a psychosocial working environment for employee happiness and health creation (Useche et al., 2019). In such a situation, members will not only be negatively affected psychologically by the destructive behavior of the leader, but also lose motivation to work due to conflict with other members which is not handled properly by the leader. Therefore, this study explored situational factors that increase the negative effects of destructive leadership.
Second, organizational diversity, the second moderating variable of this study, was predicted to have a negative effect on team innovation performance through interaction with destructive leadership but showed non-significant results. It can be inferred that the more diverse the members, the less the negative effect of destructive leadership based on the positive interaction between members. This result was also explained through previous studies on diversity that confirmed its positive aspects (Watson et al., 1993; Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001). There are several benefits to diversity among team members, such as improved quality in creativity, innovation, and performance (Watson et al., 1993; Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001). There is an advantage in achieving innovation in the process of collecting information from different individuals and presenting various solutions (Northcraft et al., 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; Kickul and Gundry, 2001). Furthermore, a highly diverse group pursues innovative strategies and has a positive influence on performance (Richard, 2000). It can challenge past practices and make members more open to change, which can drive organizational flexibility and strategic change (Wiersema and Bantel, 1992; Boeker, 1997; Cummings, 2004; Roberson et al., 2017). Therefore, this study is meaningful in that it examined the effect of diversity, which has both negative and positive effects in the process of destructive leadership affecting team innovation performance.
Third, various situational factors may exist in the process of how destructive leadership negatively impacted team innovation performance. However, there are few studies that have analyzed these conditions by simultaneously applying them, especially at the team level. This study found that the three-way interaction between destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity, that affect team innovation performance, is effective. It was shown that when intra-team conflict level and organizational diversity are high, destructive leadership highly negatively impacts team innovation performance. What is noteworthy is that when intra-team conflict level is low while organizational diversity is high, team innovation performance increases. It can be inferred that this is because of the positive effects of diversity as suggested by other studies (Watson et al., 1993; Drach-Zahavy and Somech, 2001; Kickul and Gundry, 2001). As such, this study closely analyzed the conditions for maximizing the damage of destructive leadership in a team. As presented by Burke (2006), this study broadened the research on leadership by exploring the “dark side” of leadership which has been underdeveloped. In addition, we confirmed the role of moderating variables to strengthen the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance through threat-rigidity theory, social categorization theory. We also explained the three interaction effects of two moderating variables based on the contingency theory. Our findings confirmed that these theories dealt with in organizational behavior research could be operating in the Korean employee context. Thus, these results contributed to theoretical expansion as they revealed the applicability of existing theories.
Lastly, most of the research on the negative behaviors of leaders has focused on the individual level (McCall and Lombardo, 1983; Lipman-Blumen, 2006; Einarsen et al., 2007). This study is meaningful as it expands individual-level research into team-level research.
Managerial implications
The practical implications of this study are as follows. First, it identified that destructive leadership is a key factor that hinders team innovation performance. Therefore, organizations should strengthen their leadership education programs so that team leaders can avoid destructive leadership and adopt better leadership styles. Moreover recently, most Korean companies have rapidly applied a performance-oriented and hierarchically operated system to survive in global competition, destructive leadership appears relatively frequently in Korea due to the emergence of supervisors empathizing high pressure for superior performance (Ashkanasy, 2002; Lee et al., 2013). However, work-life balance, employees’ well-being, welfare, and health in workplace are importantly considered as a source of sustainable society in recent South Korea. In this vein, there is a tendency to change a work climate in which employees do not make enough efforts for the performance when they are treated unfairly by leaders and organizations. Thus, we confirmed that destructive leader behaviors prevailed in Korean workplaces to push their employees to meet performance expectations incur more harm than benefit in the South Korean context. Thus, organization should establish a proper control system and culture to reduce the destructive leadership.
Second, considering that intra-team conflict is an important factor that increases the negative effect of destructive leadership, top management must recognize the importance of conflict management for team members. Team members may work in a constructive way through interaction, cooperation, and knowledge sharing but their relationship conflicts may negatively affect these work-related actions (Lu et al., 2011), eventually reducing team innovation performance. When experiencing conflict with other members, the leaders’ conflict management ability will be most important. Therefore, they must pay attention to conflicts between team members and manage them appropriately. Traditionally, Korean culture is characterized by collectivism, high power distance, and uncertainty avoidance (Lee and Lee, 2014). Korean employees are basically sensitive to incurring interpersonal tensions and involving group conflict issues because of collectivism tradition emphasizing the community interest and harmony than individuals’ preference (Sung and Choi, 2021b). The Confucianism prevailed in Korean society have also emphasized harmonious relationships among leader and follower as well as organizational members, so any sort of intra-conflict is less accepted (Lee et al., 2018). In this vein, proper conflict management is the crucial point for enhancing organizational innovative capability and effectiveness of Korean firms.
Third, a direct moderating effect of organizational diversity in the relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance could not be found in this study. However, when conflict within the team intensified, negative effects of organizational diversity were found. Therefore, to prevent negative effects and encourage positive effects of organizational diversity, top management must put in additional effort to maintain an appropriate level of organizational diversity.
Limitations and future research
This study also has a few limitations despite its theoretical and practical contributions. Future researchers should consider our several limitations. First, our variables were collected from a self-reported questionnaire at the same time from the same source. Although, previous study could not find strong evidence that self-reported questions prevent meaningful interpretations of data, self-report data can show common method bias (Chan, 2009). To reduce this problem, we efforted to ensure anonymity in the data collection process. In addition, organizational diversity was measured using gender, age, education level and tenure (Schippers et al., 2003). Despite our efforts, future studies should collect data from various sources and different times. For example, team innovation performance should be measured by different sources like R&D expenditure, number of new product and patent registration at team level.
Second, this study was designed as cross-sectional research, therefore, the causal relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance could not be analyzed in depth. Although this study hypothesized that the destructive leadership of the team leader undermines team innovation performance, the effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance can change over time. Therefore, longitudinal research could be designed in the future to analyze the causal relationship between destructive leadership and team innovation performance more accurately.
Third, our data were collected from South Korean employees only, it is possible that the cultural background significantly influenced employees’ attitudes and perceptions. Therefore, our results had limitations in generalizing the findings to other sectors and firms in different countries. Future researchers may replicate our findings in different country contexts.
Fourth, this study found important roles of moderating variables in maximizing the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. However, we suggest that examining the various frames can provide meaningful implications such as mediating relationship. Especially, previous research suggested a curvilinear relationship between abusive supervision and creativity (Lee et al., 2013). Thus, if future studies explore the various paths and process to explain how destructive leadership led to innovation performance, they could contribute to the research on explaining the effects of negative destructive leadership and enhancing team innovation. In addition, as the health of workers in Korean workplaces has recently attracted much attention, useful implications can be obtained if the destructive leadership and intra-conflict issues dealt with in this paper, are expanded to the studies of health and welfare of workers in future.
Conclusion
In summary, this study investigated the important situational factors that maximize the effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. The findings of our study confirmed the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. Moreover, we found that intra-team conflict played moderating roles in enhancing the negative effect of destructive leadership. In addition, this study also highlighted the importance of interaction between the three factor- destructive leadership, intra-team conflict and organizational diversity- for team innovation performance. We found something interesting in the effects of the three-way interaction. It was found that the negative impact of destructive leadership was large under three conditions, excluding low intra-team conflict and high organizational diversity. On the other hand, if the level of conflict is low and diversity is high, innovation performance is high even if the level of destructive leadership is high. In this case, it was found that even if destructive leadership exists, the conflict between team members is low, so it shows stronger team cohesion and cooperation. Therefore, it was inferred that the innovation process and performance can be influenced according to the conditions of conflict and the level of organizational diversity. Thus, our findings highlight new insights to understand the impact of conflict and organizational diversity dynamics on team innovation performance along with disruptive leadership. In sum, this study has contributed to uncovering the factors that can maximize the negative effect of destructive leadership on team innovation performance. Despite several limitations, our research on substantial moderators provides useful insights for firms that wish to manage the negative work environment and the key condition which drive teams’ innovation.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.
Author contributions
SBC was the principal researcher and prepared the first draft of the article and added valuable theoretical and methodological insights based on his knowledge and expertise regarding the topic. S-WK supervised the study and refined the draft into a publishable article. KBJ collected the data and performed empirical analysis, and in addition to motivating the publication of this article. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020S1A5A2A01044289).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., and Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New York, NY: SAGE.
Ali, A., Wang, H., and Johnson, R. E. (2020). Empirical Analysis of Shared Leadership Promotion and Team Creativity: An Adaptive Leadership Perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 41, 405–423. doi: 10.1002/job.2437
Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance. Organ. Sci. 3, 321–341. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K., and Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The Routinization of Innovation Research: A Constructively Critical Review of the State-of-the-science. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 147–173. doi: 10.1002/job.236
Aquino, K., and Douglas, S. (2003). Identity Threat and Antisocial Behavior in Organizations: The Moderating Effects of Individual Differences, Aggressive Modeling, and Hierarchical Status. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decision Proc. 90, 195–208. doi: 10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00517-4
Arazy, O., Nov, O., Patterson, R., and Yeo, L. (2011). Information Quality in Wikipedia: The Effects of Group Composition and Task Conflict. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27, 71–98. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222270403
Aryee, S., Chen, Z. X., Sun, L. Y., and Debrah, Y. A. (2007). Antecedents and Outcomes of Abusive Supervision: Test of a Trickle-down Model. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 191–201. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.191
Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Petty Tyranny in Organizations: A Preliminary Examination of Antecedents and Consequences. Can. J. Admin. Sci. Revue Canadienne des Sci. l’Admin. 14, 126–140. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-4490.1997.tb00124.x
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2002). Leadership in the Asian century: Lessons from GLOBE. Int. J. Organ. Behav. 5, 150–163.
Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., and Harrington, E. (2000). Shopfloor Innovation: Facilitating the Suggestion and Implementation of Ideas. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 73, 265–285. doi: 10.1348/096317900167029
Badke-Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., and Meijer, M. (2010). How Does Cognitive Conflict in Design Teams Support the Development of Creative Ideas? Creat. Innov. Manag. 19, 119–133. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00553.x
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D., and Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To Your Heart’s Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management Teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45, 802–836. doi: 10.2307/2667020
Bedeian, A. G., and Mossholder, K. W. (2000). On the Use of the Coefficient of Variation as a Measure of Diversity. Organ. Res. Methods 3, 285–297. doi: 10.1177/109442810033005
Beitler, L. A., Scherer, S., and Zapf, D. (2018). Interpersonal Conflict at Work: Age and Emotional Competence Differences in Conflict Management. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 8, 195–227. doi: 10.1177/2041386618808346
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. Free Press.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). “Within-Group Agreement, Non-Independence, and Reliability: Implications for Data Aggregation and Analysis,” in Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, eds K. J. Klein and S. W. J. Kozlowski (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). 249–381
Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic Change: The Influence of Managerial Characteristics and Organizational Growth. Acad. Manag. J. 40, 152–170. doi: 10.5465/257024
Brandebo, M. F. (2020). Destructive Leadership in Crisis Management. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 41, 567–580. doi: 10.1108/LODJ-02-2019-0089
Brislin, R. W. (1980). “Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Materials,” in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2, eds H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry (Boston: Allyn & Bacon). 389–444
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhard, K. M. (1995). Product Development: Past Research, Present Findings, and Future Direction. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20, 343–378. doi: 10.2307/258850
Burke, R. J. (2006). Why Leaders Fail: Exploring the Darkside. Int. J. Manpow. 27, 91–100. doi: 10.1108/01437720610652862
Cannella, A. A. Jr., Jones, C. D., and Withers, M. C. (2015). Family-versus Lone-founder-controlled Public Corporations: Social Identity Theory and Boards of Directors. Acad. Manag. J. 58, 436–459. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0045
Carnevale, P. J., and Probst, T. M. (1998). Social Values and Social Conflict in Creative Problem Solving and Categorization. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1300–1309. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1300
Chan, D. (2009). “So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad?,” in Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and Social Sciences, eds C. E. Lance and R. J. Vandenberg (New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group), 309–336.
Chang, M. L. (2020). Can Intergroup Conflict Aid the Growth of Within-and Between-group Social Capital? J. Manag. Organ. 26, 52–74. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2017.51
Chatman, J. A., and Flynn, F. J. (2001). The Influence of Demographic Heterogeneity on the Emergence and Consequences of Cooperative Norms in Work Teams. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 956–974. doi: 10.5465/3069440
Chen, X., Liu, J., Zhang, H., and Kwan, H. K. (2019). Cognitive Diversity and Innovative Work Behaviour: The Mediating Roles of Task Reflexivity and Relationship Conflict and the Moderating Role of Perceived Support. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 92, 671–694. doi: 10.1111/joop.12259
Choi, S. B., Kim, K., Ullah, S. E., and Kang, S. W. (2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers. Personnel Rev. 45, 459–479. doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2014-0058
Collins, M. D., and Jackson, C. J. (2015). A Process Model of Self-regulation and Leadership: How Attentional Resource Capacity and Negative Emotions Influence Constructive and Destructive Leadership. Leadersh. Quart. 26, 386–401. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.02.005
Connolly, J. J., and Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The Role of Affectivity in Job Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis. Personal. Indiv. Differ. 29, 265–281. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00192-0
Cox, J. F., Pearce, C. L., and Perry, M. L. (2003). “Toward a model of shared leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership can enhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness,” in Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership, eds C. L. Pearce and J. A. Conger (SAGE). doi: 10.4135/9781452229539
Crescenzi, R., and Gagliardi, L. (2018). The Innovative Performance of Firms in Heterogeneous Environments: The Interplay between External Knowledge and Internal Absorptive Capacities. Res. Policy 47, 782–795. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.006
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Manag. Sci. 50, 352–364. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1030.0134
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., and Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team Diversity and Information Use. Acad. Manag. J. 48, 1107–1123. doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.19573112
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When Too Little or Too Much Hurts: Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Task Conflict and Innovation in Teams. J. Manag. 32, 83–107. doi: 10.1177/0149206305277795
De Dreu, C. K., and Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 741–749. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
De Hoogh, A. H., and Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Ethical and Despotic Leadership, Relationships with Leader’s Social Responsibility, Top Management Team Effectiveness and Subordinates’ Optimism: A Multi-method Study. Leadersh. Quart. 19, 297–311. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.03.002
De Meuse, K. P., and Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an Instrument for Measuring Attitudes toward and Perceptions of Workplace Diversity: An Initial Report. Hum. Resou. Dev. Quart. 12, 33–51. doi: 10.1002/1532-1096(200101/02)12:1<33::AID-HRDQ4>3.0.CO;2-P
Derks, D., and Bakker, A. B. (2014). Smartphone Use, Work–home Interference, and Burnout: A Diary Study on the Role of Recovery. Appl. Psychol. 63, 411–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00530.x
Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., Burris, E. R., and Andiappan, M. (2007). Managerial Modes of Influence and Counterproductivity in Organizations: A Longitudinal Business-unit-level Investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 993–1005. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.993
Dolce, V., Vayre, E., Molino, M., and Ghislieri, C. (2020). Far Away, So Close? The Role of Destructive Leadership in the Job Demands–resources and Recovery Model in Emergency Telework. Soc. Sci. 9:196. doi: 10.3390/socsci9110196
Donaldson, L. (2001). The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781452229249
Downes, P. E., Gonzalez-Mulé, E., Seong, J. Y., and Park, W. W. (2021). To Collaborate or Not? The Moderating Effects of Team Conflict on Performance-prove Goal Orientation, Collaboration, and Team Performance. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 94, 568–590. doi: 10.1111/joop.12360
Drach-Zahavy, A., and Somech, A. (2001). Understanding Team Innovation: The Role of Team Processes and Structures. Group Dyn. 5, 111–123. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.5.2.111
Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., and Pagon, M. (2002). Social Undermining in the Workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 331–351. doi: 10.5465/3069350
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., and Skogstad, A. (2007). Destructive Leadership Behaviour: A Definition and Conceptual Model. Leadersh. Quart. 18, 207–216. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.002
Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., and Cooper, C. (2003). “The Concept of Bullying at Work: The European Tradition,” in Bullying and Emotional Abuse in the Workplace: International Perspectives in Research and Practice, eds S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, and C. Cooper (Milton Park: Taylor & Francis). 3–30. doi: 10.4324/9780203278734
Erickson, A., Shaw, B., Murray, J., and Branch, S. (2015). Destructive Leadership: Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures. Organ. Dyn. 44, 266–272. doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2015.09.003
Esbati, Z., and Korunka, C. (2021). Does Intragroup Conflict Intensity Matter? The Moderating Effects of Conflict Management on Emotional Exhaustion and Work Engagement. Front. Psychol. 12:614001. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.614001
Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., and Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive Supervision: A Systematic Review and Fundamental Rethink. Leadersh. Quart. 32:101540. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101540
Furnham, A., and Taylor, J. (2004). The Dark Side of Behaviour at Work: Understanding and Avoiding Employees Leaving, Thieving and Deceiving. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230510104
Guzman, F. A., and Espejo, A. (2019). Introducing Changes at Work: How Voice Behavior Relates to Management Innovation. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 73–90. doi: 10.1002/job.2319
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., and Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface-and Deep-level Diversity on Group Functioning. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 1029–1045. doi: 10.5465/3069328
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress. Am. Psychol. 44, 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
Hoch, J. E., Pearce, C. L., and Welzel, L. (2010). Is the Most Effective Team Leadership Shared? J. Personnel Psychol. 9, 105–116. doi: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000020
Hocking, R. R., and Pendleton, O. J. (1983). The Regression Dilemma. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 12, 497–527. doi: 10.1080/03610928308828477
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., and van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Leading Diversity: Towards a Theory of Functional Leadership in Diverse Teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 105, 1101–1128. doi: 10.1037/apl0000482
Hoppe, A., Fujishiro, K., and Heaney, C. A. (2014). Workplace Racial/ethnic Similarity, Job Satisfaction, and Lumbar Back Health among Warehouse Workers: Asymmetric Reactions across Racial/ethnic Groups. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 172–193. doi: 10.1002/job.1860
Horwitz, S. K., and Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Team Diversity on Team Outcomes: A Meta-analytic Review of Team Demography. J. Manag. 33, 987–1015. doi: 10.1177/0149206307308587
Hsiao, A., Auld, C., and Ma, E. (2015). Perceived Organizational Diversity and Employee Behavior. Int. J. Hospital. Manag. 48, 102–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.009
Hu, M. L. M., Horng, J. S., and Sun, Y. H. C. (2009). Hospitality Teams: Knowledge Sharing and Service Innovation Performance. Tourism Manag. 30, 41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2008.04.009
Hu, N., Wu, J., and Gu, J. (2019). Cultural Intelligence and Employees’ Creative Performance: The Moderating Role of Team Conflict in Interorganizational Teams. J. Manag. Organ. 25, 96–116. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2016.64
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., and Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, Creativity, and Innovation: A Critical Review and Practical Recommendations. Leadersh. Quart. 29, 549–569. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
Iqbal, S., Moleiro Martins, J., Nuno Mata, M., Naz, S., Akhtar, S., and Abreu, A. (2021). Linking Entrepreneurial Orientation with Innovation Performance in SMEs; The Role of Organizational Commitment and Transformational Leadership using Smart PLS-SEM. Sustainability 13:4361. doi: 10.3390/su13084361
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., and Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An Assessment of Within-group Interrater Agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 306–309. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
Janssen, O. (2005). The Joint Impact of Perceived Influence and Supervisor Supportiveness on Employee Innovative Behaviour. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 78, 573–579. doi: 10.1348/096317905X25823
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40, 256–282. doi: 10.2307/2393638
Jehn, K. A., and Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup Conflict in Organizations: A Contingency Perspective on the Conflict-outcome Relationship. Res. Organ. Behav. 25, 187–242. doi: 10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25005-X
Jehn, K. A., Greer, L., Levine, S., and Szulanski, G. (2008). The Effects of Conflict Types, Dimensions, and Emergent States on Group Outcomes. Group Decis. Negot. 17, 465–495. doi: 10.1007/s10726-008-9107-0
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., and Neale, M. A. (1999). Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict and Performance in Workgroups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44, 741–763. doi: 10.2307/2667054
Joshi, A., and Roh, H. (2009). The Role of Context in Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-analytic Review. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 599–627. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.41331491
Katz, R. (1982). The Effects of Group Longevity on Project Communication and Performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 27, 81–104. doi: 10.2307/2392547
Kaya, B., Abubakar, A. M., Behravesh, E., Yildiz, H., and Mert, I. S. (2020). Antecedents of Innovative Performance: Findings from PLS-SEM and Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). J. Bus. Res. 114, 278–289. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.016
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press
Kelloway, E. K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L., and Barling, J. (2005). “Poor leadership,” in Handbook of Work Stress, eds E. K. Kelloway, N Sivanathan, L Francis, and J. Barling (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE). 89–112. doi: 10.4135/9781412975995.n5
Kickul, J., and Gundry, L. K. (2001). Breaking through Boundaries for Organizational Innovation: New Managerial Roles and Practices in E-commerce Firms. J. Manag. 27, 347–361. doi: 10.1177/014920630102700307
Kim, B. P., Murrmann, S. K., and Lee, G. (2009). Moderating Effects of Gender and Organizational Level between Role Stress and Job Satisfaction among Hotel Employees. Int. J. Hospital. Manag. 28, 612–619. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.04.001
Kim, H. (2018). Differential Impacts of Functional, Geographical, and Hierarchical Diversity on Knowledge Sharing in the Midst of Organizational Change. Manag. Commun. Quart. 32, 5–30. doi: 10.1177/0893318917728340
Kim, J., and Song, C. (2020). The Relationship between R&D Team diversity and Team Creativity. Manag. Decis. 59, 175–189. doi: 10.1108/MD-12-2019-1727
Kipkosgei, F., Kang, S. W., and Choi, S. B. (2020). A Team-level Study of the Relationship between Knowledge Sharing and Trust in Kenya: Moderating Role of Collaborative Technology. Sustainability 12:1615. doi: 10.3390/su12041615
Klingebiel, R., and Rammer, C. (2014). Resource Allocation Strategy for Innovation Portfolio Management. Strategic Manag. J. 35, 246–268. doi: 10.1002/smj.2107
Kwon, K., and Kim, T. (2020). An Integrative Literature Review of Employee Engagement and Innovative Behavior: Revisiting the JD-R Model. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 30:100704. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100704
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., and Knight, C. (2020). Leadership, Creativity and Innovation: A Meta-analytic Review. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 29, 1–35. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2019.1661837
Lee, C. Y., and Lee, J. Y. (2014). South Korean Corporate Culture and its Lessons for Building Corporate Culture in China. J. Int. Manag. Stud. 9, 33–42.
Lee, S., Kwon, S., Shin, S. J., Kim, M., and Park, I. J. (2018). How Team-level and Individual-level Conflict Influences Team Commitment: A Multilevel Investigation. Front. Psychol. 8:2365. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02365
Lee, S., Yun, S., and Srivastava, A. (2013). Evidence for a Curvilinear Relationship between Abusive Supervision and Creativity in South Korea. Leadersh. Quart. 24, 724–731. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.07.002
Leon-Perez, J. M., Antino, M., and Leon-Rubio, J. M. (2016). The Role of Psychological Capital and Intragroup Conflict on Employees’ Burnout and Quality of Service: A Multilevel Approach. Front. Psychol. 7:1755. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01755
Liang, J., Shu, R., and Farh, C. I. (2019). Differential Implications of Team Member Promotive and Prohibitive Voice on Innovation Performance in Research and Development Project Teams: A Dialectic Perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 40, 91–104. doi: 10.1002/job.2325
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians-and How We Can Survive Them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lu, L., Zhou, F., and Leung, K. (2011). Effects of Task and Relationship Conflicts on Individual Work Behaviors. Int. J. Conflict Manag. 22, 131–150. doi: 10.1108/10444061111126675
Mackey, J. D., Ellen, B. P. III, McAllister, C. P., and Alexander, K. C. (2021). The Dark Side of Leadership: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis of Destructive Leadership Research. J. Bus. Res. 132, 705–718. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.037
McCall, M. W. J., and Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off The Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. doi: 10.35613/ccl.1983.1083
Mitchell, M. S., and Ambrose, M. L. (2007). Abusive Supervision and Workplace Deviance and the Moderating Effects of Negative Reciprocity Beliefs. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1159–1168. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159
Mohammed, S., and Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level Diversity in Workgroups: Examining the Moderating Effects of Team Orientation and Team Process on Relationship Conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 1015–1039. doi: 10.1002/job.293
Molino, M., Cortese, C. G., and Ghislieri, C. (2019). Unsustainable Working Conditions: The Association of Destructive Leadership, Use of Technology, and Workload with Workaholism and Exhaustion. Sustainability 11:446. doi: 10.3390/su11020446
Namie, G., and Namie, R. (2000). Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity on the Job. Naperville, IL: SOURCEBOOKS.
Newman, A., Herman, H. M., Schwarz, G., and Nielsen, I. (2018). The Effects of Employees’. Creative Self-efficacy on Innovative Behavior: The Role of Entrepreneurial Leadership. J. Bus. Res. 89, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.001
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2012). Employee Voice Behavior: A Meta-analytic Test of the Conservation of Resources Framework. J. Organ. Behav. 33, 216–234. doi: 10.1002/job.754
Nightingale, D. (1974). “Conflict and conflict resolution,” in Organizational behavior: Research and issues, eds G. Strouss, R. E. Miles, C. C. Snow, and A. S. Tannenbaum (Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association), 141–163.
Northcraft, G. B., Polzer, J. T., Neale, M. A., and Kramer, R. M. (1995). “Diversity, Social Identity, and Performance: Emergent Social Dynamics in Cross-functional Teams,” in Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing Workplace, eds S. E. Jackson and M. N. Ruderman (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 69–97. doi: 10.1037/10189-003
Ogunfowora, B., Weinhardt, J. M., and Hwang, C. C. (2021). Abusive Supervision Differentiation and Employee Outcomes: The Roles of Envy, Resentment, and Insecure Group Attachment. J. Manag. 47, 623–653. doi: 10.1177/0149206319862024
O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., and Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of Team Conflict: A Team-level Meta-analysis of Task, Relationship, and Process Conflict. Hum. Perform. 26, 236–260. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
O’Neill, T. A., and Mclarnon, M. J. (2018). Optimizing Team Conflict Dynamics for High Performance Teamwork. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 28, 378–394. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.002
Park, J. H., Carter, M. Z., DeFrank, R. S., and Deng, Q. (2018). Abusive Supervision, Psychological Distress, and Silence: The Effects of Gender Dissimilarity between Supervisors and Subordinates. J. Bus. Ethics 153, 775–792. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3384-3
Pelled, H. L. (1996). Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory. Organ. Sci. 6, 207–229. doi: 10.1287/orsc.7.6.615
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., and Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict and Performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44, 1–28. doi: 10.2307/2667029
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., and Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Innovative Behavior: The Moderating Role of Psychological Empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 609–623. doi: 10.1002/job.650
Pinar, M., McCuddy, M. K., Birkan, I., and Kozak, M. (2011). Gender Diversity in the Hospitality Industry: An Empirical Study in Turkey. Int. J. Hospital. Manag. 30, 73–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.06.007
Pirola-Merlo, A., and Mann, L. (2004). The Relationship between Individual Creativity and Team Creativity: Aggregating across People and Time. J. Organ. Behav. 25, 235–257. doi: 10.1002/job.240
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P. C., Slattery, T., and Sardessai, R. (2005). Determinants of Innovative Work Behaviour: Development and Test of an Integrated Model. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14, 142–150. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2005.00334.x
Reynolds, D., Rahman, I., and Bradetich, S. (2014). Hotel Managers’ Perceptions of the Value of Diversity Training: An Empirical Investigation. Int. J. Contemp. Hospital. Manag. 26, 426–446. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2013-0079
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-based View. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 164–177. doi: 10.5465/1556374
Richard, O. C., Murthi, B. S., and Ismail, K. (2007). The Impact of Racial Diversity on Intermediate and Long-term Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Context. Strategic Manag. J. 28, 1213–1233. doi: 10.1002/smj.633
Roberson, Q., Holmes, O. IV, and Perry, J. L. (2017). Transforming Research on Diversity and Firm Performance: A Dynamic Capabilities Perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 11, 189–216. doi: 10.5465/annals.2014.0019
Sackett, P. R., and DeVore, C. J. (2001). “Counterproductives at work,” in Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology, eds N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, and C. Viswesvaran (London: SAGE). 145–164
Saeed, B. B., Afsar, B., Cheema, S., and Javed, F. (2018). Leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: The role of creative process engagement, core self-evaluation, and domain knowledge. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 22, 105–124. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-11-2017-0158
Salanova, M., López-González, A. A., Llorens, S., del Líbano, M., Vicente-Herrero, M. T., and Tomás-Salvá, M. (2016). Your Work may be Killing You! Workaholism, Sleep Problems and Cardiovascular Risk. Work Stress 30, 228–242. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2016.1203373
Sangal, R. B., Bray, A., Reid, E., Ulrich, A., Liebhardt, B., Venkatesh, A. K., et al. (2021). Leadership Communication, Stress, and Burnout among Frontline Emergency Department Staff Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Approach. Healthcare 9:100577. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2021.100577
Schippers, M. C., Den Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., and Wienk, J. A. (2003). Diversity and Team Outcomes: The Moderating Effects of Outcome Interdependence and Group Longevity and the Mediating Effect of Reflexivity. J. Organ. Behav. 24, 779–802. doi: 10.1002/job.220
Schyns, B., and Schilling, J. (2013). How Bad Are the Effects of Bad Leaders? A Meta-analysis of Destructive Leadership and Its Outcomes. Leadersh. Quart. 24, 138–158. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.09.001
Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 580–607. doi: 10.5465/256701
Shackleton, V. (1995). “Leaders who derail,” in Business Leadership, ed. V. Shackleton (London: THOMSON). 89–100
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., and Jehn, K. A. (2016). A Review of Perceived Diversity in Teams: Does How Members Perceive Their Team’s Composition Affect Team Processes and Outcomes? J. Organ. Behav. 37, 89–106. doi: 10.1002/job.1957
Shetach, A. (2009). The Revised Decision-square Model (RDSM). Team Perform. Manag. 15, 7–17. doi: 10.1108/13527590910937685
Simons, T. L., and Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task Conflict and Relationship Conflict in Top Management Teams: The Pivotal Role of Intragroup Trust. J. Appl. Psychol. 85, 102–111. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Skarlicki, D., and Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the Workplace: The Roles of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional Justice. J. Appl. Psychol. 82, 434–443. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.434
Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., and Sims, H. P. Jr. (1994). Top Management Team Demography and Process: The Role of Social Integration and Communication. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39, 412–438. doi: 10.2307/2393297
Soni, V. (2000). A Twenty-first-century Reception for Diversity in the Public Sector: A Case Study. Public Admin. Rev. 60, 395–408. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00103
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., and Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat Rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26, 501–524. doi: 10.2307/2392337
Suifan, T. S., Alhyari, S., and Sweis, R. J. (2019). A Moderated Mediation Model of Intragroup Conflict. Int. J. Conflict Manag. 31, 91–114. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-05-2019-0084
Sung, S. Y., and Choi, J. N. (2021a). Contingent Effects of Workforce Diversity on Firm Innovation: High-tech Industry and Market Turbulence as Critical Environmental Contingencies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32, 1986–2012. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2019.1579243
Sung, S. Y., and Choi, J. N. (2021b). Leader Status Behaviors and Team Creativity: The Role of Collective Interactions and Status Conflict among Members. J. Organ. Behav. 42, 1120–1133. doi: 10.1002/job.2551
Tafvelin, S., Keisu, B. I., and Kvist, E. (2020). The Prevalence and Consequences of Intragroup Conflicts for Employee Well-being in Women-dominated Work. Hum. Service Organ. 44, 47–62. doi: 10.1080/23303131.2019.1661321
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. (1986). “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, eds S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Chicago: Nelson-Hall). 7–24
Tang, G., Chen, Y., van Knippenberg, D., and Yu, B. (2020). Antecedents and Consequences of Empowering Leadership: Leader Power Distance, Leader Perception of Team Capability, and Team Innovation. J. Organ. Behav. 41, 551–566. doi: 10.1002/job.2449
Telyani, A. E., Farmanesh, P., and Zargar, P. (2022). An Examination of the Relationship Between Levels Diversity-Organizational Performance: Does Innovative Culture Matter? SAGE Open 12:21582440211 doi: 10.1177/21582440211067244
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of Abusive Supervision. Acad. Manag. J. 43, 178–190. doi: 10.5465/1556375
Tepper, B. J., Duffy, M. K., Hoobler, J., and Ensley, M. D. (2004). Moderators of the Relationships between Coworkers’ Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Fellow Employees’ Attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 455–465. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.455
Tepper, B. J., Moss, S. E., Lockhart, D. E., and Carr, J. C. (2007). Abusive Supervision, Upward Maintenance Communication, and Subordinates’ Psychological Distress. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 1169–1180. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.20159918
Turner, J. C., and Haslam, S. A. (2001). “Social Identity, Organizations and Leadership,” in Groups at Work: Theory and Research, ed. M. Turner (Mahwah, NJ: ERLBAUM). 25–65
Turner, J. C., and Reynolds, K. J. (2011). Self-categorization Theory. Handbook of Theor. Soc. Psychol. 2, 399–417. doi: 10.4135/9781446249222.n46
Useche, S. A., Montoro, L., Alonso, F., and Pastor, J. C. (2019). Psychosocial Work Factors, Job Stress and Strain at the Wheel: Validation of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) in Professional Drivers. Front Psychol. 10:1531. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01531
Vakola, M., and Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of Organisational Silence: An Empirical Investigation. Emp. Relat. 27, 441–458. doi: 10.1108/01425450510611997
Van Dyne, L., and LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and Voice Extra-role Behaviors: Evidence of Construct and Predictive Validity. Acad. Manag. J. 41, 108–119. doi: 10.5465/256902
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., and Homan, A. C. (2004). Work Group Diversity and Group Performance: An Integrative Model and Research Agenda. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1008–1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Vinarski-Peretz, H., Binyamin, G., and Carmeli, A. (2011). Subjective Relational Experiences and Employee Innovative Behaviors in the Workplace. J. Vocat. Behav. 78, 290–304. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.005
Vredenburgh, D., and Brender, Y. (1998). The Hierarchical Abuse of Power in Work Organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 17, 1337–1347. doi: 10.1023/A:1005775326249
Waight, J., and Madera, J. M. (2011). Diversity Training: Examining Minority Employees’. Organizational Attitudes. Worldwide Hospital. Tourism Themes. 3, 365–376. doi: 10.1108/17554211111162471
Wall, J. A. Jr., and Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and Its Management. J. Manag. 21, 515–558. doi: 10.1177/014920639502100306
Wang, C., Chin, T., and Lin, J. H. (2020). Openness and Firm Innovation Performance: The Moderating Effect of Ambidextrous Knowledge Search Strategy. J. Knowl. Manag. 24, 301–323. doi: 10.1108/JKM-04-2019-0198
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., and Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural Diversity’s Impact on Interaction Process and Performance: Comparing Homogeneous and Diverse Task Groups. Acad. Manag. J. 36, 590–602. doi: 10.5465/256593
Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K. H., and Kanfer, R. (2008). Age and Gender Diversity as Determinants of Performance and Health in a Public Organization: The Role of Task Complexity and Group Size. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 1301–1313. doi: 10.1037/a0012680
Whitman, M. V., Halbesleben, J. R., and Holmes, O. IV (2014). Abusive Supervision and Feedback Avoidance: The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion. J. Organ. Behav. 35, 38–53. doi: 10.1002/job.1852
Wiersema, M. F., and Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top Management Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change. Acad. Manag. J. 35, 91–121. doi: 10.5465/256474
Wiklund, J., and Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial Orientation and Small Business Performance: A Configurational Approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 20, 71–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.001
Williams, K. Y., and O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and Diversity in Organizations: A Review of 40 Years of Research. Res. Organ. Behav. 20, 77–140.
Wu, M., Peng, Z., and Estay, C. (2018). How Role Stress Mediates the Relationship Between Destructive Leadership and Employee Silence: The Moderating Role of Job Complexity. J. Pacific Rim Psychol. 12:e19. doi: 10.1017/prp.2018.7
Xu, A. J., Loi, R., and Lam, L. W. (2015). The Bad Boss Takes It All: How Abusive Supervision and Leader–Member Exchange Interact to Influence Employee Silence. Leadersh. Quart. 26, 763–774. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.03.002
Yin, J., Jia, M., Ma, Z., and Liao, G. (2020). Team Leader’s Conflict Management Styles and Innovation Performance in Entrepreneurial Teams. Int. J. Conflict Manag. 31, 373–392. doi: 10.1108/IJCMA-09-2019-0168
Zhang, X., and Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 107–128. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118
Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001). When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity: Encouraging the Expression of Voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 682–696. doi: 10.5465/3069410
Zopiatis, A., Constanti, P., and Theocharous, A. L. (2014). Job Involvement, Commitment, Satisfaction and Turnover: Evidence from Hotel Employees in Cyprus. Tourism Manag. 41, 129–140. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.09.013
Zouaghi, F., Garcia-Marco, T., and Martinez, M. G. (2020). The Link between R&D Team Diversity and Innovative Performance: A Mediated Moderation Model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 161:120325. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120325
Appendix A
Destructive Leadership (α = 0.879) (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007)
1. My team leader ridicules me.
2. My team leader tells me my thoughts or feelings are stupid.
3. My team leader puts me down in front of others.
4. My team leader makes negative comments about me to others.
5. My team leader tells me I’m incompetent.
Intra-team Conflict (α = 0.904) (Jehn, 1995)
1. Our team tends to have personality conflicts between members.
2. Our team tends to have emotional conflicts between members.
3. Our team tends to have personality conflict between members.
4. Our team tends to have tension between the members.
Team Innovation Performance (α = 0.877) (Pirola-Merlo and Mann, 2004)
1. My team’s recent output is new.
2. My team’s recent output is creative.
3. My team’s recent output is useful.
4. My team’s recent output is innovative.
Keywords: destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, organizational diversity, innovation performance, three-way interaction
Citation: Choi SB, Jung KB and Kang S-W (2022) What hinders team innovation performance? Three-way interaction of destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity. Front. Psychol. 13:879412. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.879412
Received: 19 February 2022; Accepted: 13 September 2022;
Published: 29 September 2022.
Edited by:
Neuza Ribeiro, Escola Superior de Tecnologia e Gestão, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, PortugalReviewed by:
Sergio A. Useche, University of Valencia, SpainPouya Zargar, Girne American University, Cyprus
Copyright © 2022 Choi, Jung and Kang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Suk Bong Choi, c3VrY2hvaUBrb3JlYS5hYy5rcg==; Seung-Wan Kang, Z2xvYmFsN0BnYWNob24uYWMua3I=