Você está na página 1de 5


A team is a group of individuals who communicate amongst each other and work towards a
common objective. Each and every person contributes to his team in a number of ways.
Putting forth and implementing your own ideas is called innovative behaviour and
encouraging team members attune their work to make sure that the team succeeds is called
teamwork behaviour. The paper focuses on how good empowering leadership motivates the
team in performing well and instils a sense of trust for the superior in the minds of the
individuals. But at the same time, mutual conflicts demotivate a team and lead to its failure.
Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing
empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-
managerial subordinates

According to Huang et al, there are two models that describe the work behaviour and
performance of subordinates due to the participative leadership behaviour of the superior.
The motivational model asserts that the subordinates must be given more opportunities to
participate in the decision making. All their ideas should be taken into consideration before
making the final decision. This makes them more efficient and also improves their work
performance. Participative leadership induces OCBs and employees find their efficiency in
the job related activities is more rewarding they get motivated, and work harder to achieve
their goals.
The Exchange Based model explains that the relationship between the superiors and the
subordinates depends on how the subordinates reciprocate to their superiors. If the superiors
respect their employees, treat them well, the employees develop a zest for their work and
contribute much more than is expected. The trust that the employees have on their superiors
determines the kind of relationship that they share. The degree to which the employees are
vulnerable to the action of their superiors depends on the attitude of the superiors, how they
conduct themselves. Participative leadership behaviour of the superior causes the employees
to feel that they are treated justly without prejudice. They develop a high level of trust and
show citizenship behaviours. Thus the approach of the Exchange Based model affects the
employees performance by inciting a sense of trust in their superiors.
Participative leadership behaviour has always been a source of intrinsic motivation. The
situations in which Motivational model or Exchange Based model is used or both are used is
decisive cause of 2 factors. First, the job level of the employee affects his idea of participative
leadership behaviour. Employees with higher level jobs always display a sense of command
while lower level employees feel it is more important to keep good relations with their
colleagues and supervisors. Participated leadership behaviour is related to work performance
in different ways for employees at different levels. Thus it is purported that Motivational
based model be used for managerial subordinates while Exchange Based model be used for
non-managerial subordinates.
Participative management can also be improved by developing training programs.
Practitioners can better develop them by fully understanding the mechanisms by which
participative leadership affects the work performance. When the performance of the lower
level employees can be significantly increased by participative leadership, managerial
subordinates feel that empowerment works causes misunderstanding of their needs.
Participative leadership causes a lot of trust for the superiors in the minds of the subordinates.
This function could also be interpreted incorrectly due to lack of understanding and the
practitioners may not design the training effectively.
The behaviour of the employees is characterized by how the superior conducts himself.
Transformational leadership was found to directly affect the work behaviour of the
employees by impelling intrinsic motivation. This uses the motivational model. Work
behaviour can also be affected by improving the quality of the leader member exchange this
by using the Exchange Based model.
Motivating and Demotivating Forces in Teams: Cross-Level Influences of
Empowering Leadership and Relationship Conflict

The second article by Chen et al depicts the combined effects of motivation and demotivation
on each individual of the team. Leadership empowerment and conflict among team members
are very powerful motivating and demotivating factors in the team respectively. The
employees find themselves in a cognitive state when they are able to accomplish their goals,
affect the outcomes, and exercise their choice in the way they do their work.
Research has found that empowering leadership is examined by the way leaders deal with
their employees. A leader can call himself empowering only if he shares his authority with
his employees by involving them in decision making, holding them accountable for their
work, instilling in them the confidence to accomplish challenging tasks. On the other hand, a
leader who does not deliver empowering leadership just monitors the behaviour of his
subordinates and has little confidence in them. Employees are more willing to contribute
extra to the team and work professionally when the have an empowering leader. Such a
leader can make his employees believe that they share equal power and can affect the
outcome of their team. This leads to an emotional feeling of attachment and commitment to
the team in the minds of the employees.
On the other hand, mutual conflict among the team members demotivates them. If the degree
of misunderstanding is too high, the team gets involved in mutual conflicts, disagreements,
and this leads to fear, tension and frustration in their minds. Teams with lower levels of
mutual conflicts take decisions in harmony and respect each others ideas. In comparison to
teams with lower mutual misunderstandings, team members with higher mutual conflicts
withdraw from their tasks. This is in consistence with the threat rigidity theory. Also such
teams that have experienced averse situations reduce the teams self confidence in achieving
its objectives and as a result, the team cannot enjoy its work. The team members become less
emotionally attached and tend to lose their feeling of commitment.
Though empowering leadership and mutual conflicts have opposite effects on teams,
empowering leadership may also cause mutual conflict as they challenge a team to work in
harmony. At the same time, they also give their members the control and the confidence to
handle challenging situations and accomplish the required tasks. Thus both of them affect the
motivational states of the members.
The two theoretical models thus influence the members work performance and their desire to
withdraw from the team. Psychologically empowered team members who are motivated feel
a sense of command and control to their work, are more creative and are not likely to
withdraw from the team. Psychological empowerment and affective commitment projects the
difference in both the positive and negative outcomes of the team and the decision to
withdraw from the organisation.
The team that is more united and collective in its decision making remains highly motivated
in spite of motivating and demotivating team stimuli. They strive to maintain a good
environment and the outcome of the team improves.
This annotated bibliography shows the effect of empowering leadership and affective
commitment on the employees. Though empowering leadership motivates the individuals to
handle challenging roles and accomplish them, it can also lead to mutual conflicts as it
challenges them to coordinate.
The article by Huang et al shows that the team gets positively influenced by engaging them in
decision making thus increasing their efficiency. It stresses that a superior who respects his
subordinates gains their trusts and goads them to do well.
Chen et al however contradicts these findings by showing that empowering leadership also
results in mutual conflicts thus demotivating the team members.
[1] Xu Huang, Joyce Iun, Aili Liu and Yaping Gong; Does participative leadership enhance
work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial
and non-managerial subordinates; Wiley InterScience; 28 July 2009; DOI: 10.1002/job.636

[2] Gilad Chen, Payal Nangia Sharma, Suzanne K. Edinger, Debra L. Shapiro, Jiing-Lih
Farh; Motivating and Demotivating Forces in Teams: Cross-Level Influences of Empowering
Leadership and Relationship Conflict; Journal of Applied Psychology; DOI:

[3] Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales
force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behaviour on
customer satisfaction and performance; Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 945955.

[4] Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering
leadership questionnaire: The
construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,
21, 249269.

[5] Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998); A general approach for representing constructs
in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 1, 4587.

[6] Balogun, J. (2003). From blaming the middle to harnessing its potential: Creating change
intermediaries. British
Journal of Management, 14, 6983.

[7] Beyer, J. M., Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., Glick, W. H., Ogilvie, d. t., & Pugliese, D.
(1997). The selective
perception of managers revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 716737.

[8] Bijlsma, K. M., & van de Bunt, G. G. (2003). Antecedents of trusts in managers: A
bottom up approach.
Personnel Review, 32, 638664.

[9]Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Fuller, J. (2003). A longitudinal study of the
relationship between selfmonitoring
and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 131144.

[10] Brashear, T. G., Manolis, C., & Brooks, C. M. (2005). The effects of control, trust, and
justice on salesperson
turnover. Journal of Business Research, 58, 241249.

[11] Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[12] Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal
analysis of links to newcomers commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management
Journal, 33, 847 858. doi: 10.2307/256294

[13] Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of
innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 147173. doi:10.1002/job.236

[14] Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[15] Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (Vol.
3, pp. 199267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

[16] Harrison, D. A., Mohammed, S., McGrath, J. E., Florey, A. T., & Vanderstoep, S. W.
(2003). Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment and
task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56, 633 669.

[17] Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of
intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,256282. doi:10.2307/2393638

[18] Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530557. doi:10.2307/2393737

[19] Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal
study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44,
238251. doi:10.2307/3069453

[20] MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the
indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99128. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

[21] Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1987). Leading workers to lead themselves:The external
leadership of self-managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 106129.