Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe aim of this paper is to present a model of the moderating role of emotional self-leadership on the cognitive conflict–affective conflict relationship and their effect on work team decision quality.Design/methodology/approachThis paper draws upon extant theoretical and empirical research on the conflict, leadership and emotions literature works to argue for the role of emotional self-leadership as a boundary condition of the intra-team conflict–work team decision quality relationship.FindingsKey to understanding why cognitive conflict sometimes leads to improved decision quality and sometimes it does not is the role of emotional self-leadership. Through emotional self-leadership, team members can actively anticipate, guide and focus their emotional responses to cognitive conflict and reduce their experience of affective conflict, improving team decision quality.Research limitations/implicationsIdentifying and explaining the moderating role of emotional self-leadership represents important progress for reframing emotion regulation and emotional intelligence into a new theoretical lens that may yield more meaningful insights into self-managed teams' research. If empirically supported, this moderating effect would help explain the contradictory results obtained in prior empirical studies.Practical implicationsPractitioners can diminish or avoid the negative effect of the type of conflict that lowers work team decision quality and preserve the positive effect of the type of conflict that improves work team decision quality by identifying and implementing ways to improve a work team's level of collective emotional self-leadership.Originality/valueThis paper extends the emotions, leadership and conflict literature works into the current research on self-directed work teams' effectiveness by bringing attention to the moderating role of emotional self-leadership and calls for empirical research on this subject.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions of the "Ideal President" (IP) and presidential candidates in the 2016 US presidential election in relation to gender stereotypes and leader prototypes.Design/methodology/approachIn all, 378 business students assessed perceptions of either the IP or a particular candidate on measures of masculinity and femininity. Androgyny (balance of masculinity and femininity) and hypermasculinity (extremely high masculinity) scores were calculated from these measures.FindingsThe IP was perceived as higher in masculinity than femininity, but less similar to the male (Donald Trump) than the female (Hillary Clinton) candidate. IP perceptions were more androgynous than in the 2008 US presidential election. Respondents' political preferences were related to their IP perceptions on hypermasculinity, which in turn were consistent with perceptions of their preferred candidate.Social implicationsTrump's high hypermasculinity scores may explain why he won the electoral college vote, whereas Clinton's being perceived as more similar to the IP, and IP perceptions' becoming more androgynous over time, may explain why she won the popular vote.Originality/valueThe study extends the literature on the linkages between gender stereotypes and leader prototypes in two respects. Contrary to the general assumption of a shared leader prototype, it demonstrates the existence of different leader prototypes according to political preference. The hypermasculinity construct, which was introduced to interpret leader prototypes in light of Trump's candidacy and election, represents a valuable addition to the literature with potentially greater explanatory power than masculinity in some situations.