Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine social conflicts with co-workers (SCCWs) as a predictor of job satisfaction with co-workers (JSCWs) on a daily basis. Moreover, dispositional emotion regulation (ER) was suggested to moderate the within-person relationship between daily conflicts at work and JSCWs.Design/methodology/approachNinety-eight employees from German civil service agencies completed surveys across five consecutive work days. Dispositional variables and controls were assessed in a general survey which was completed before the start of the daily surveys.FindingsHierarchical linear modeling showed that SCCWs at noon were significantly related to employees' JSCWs in the evening and that dispositional ER moderated this relationship, indicating that people with high abilities of ER reported higher levels of job satisfaction with their co-workers than people with low abilities of ER after experiencing SCCWs.Originality/valueThe present study links conflict research with organizational and personality research. The findings broaden the understanding of social conflicts in an organizational context and further highlight ER as an important factor which can buffer the negative effects of workplace conflicts.

This study investigates expertise (i.e., high level of individual task performance) and self-efficacy as predictors of an individual's contribution to teamwork processes (problem analysis, goal specification) during team meetings. Multilevel, multisource data from a longitudinal field study in 22 professional software design teams reveal large within-team variability in individual contributions to teamwork processes. Expertise positively predicted a team member's contribution to meeting processes 1 year later, also when controlling for the initial level of contribution. Contrary to the hypothesis, self-efficacy was negatively related to problem analysis during team meetings.

PurposeDrawing from the conservation of resources theory and the success resource model of job stress, the authors investigated the role of leader behaviours in the context of leader-member exchanges (LMXs) as a driver of leaders' job-related well-being and recovery. Specifically, they hypothesised positive affect and perceived competence as potential mechanisms enhancing leaders' job satisfaction and psychological detachment.Design/methodology/approachDaily diary data were collected from 85 leaders over five consecutive working days (376 daily observations) and analysed using multilevel path analyses.FindingsLeader LMX behaviours were positively associated with leaders' positive affect and perceived competence at work at the person and day levels. Additionally, results provided support for most of the assumed indirect effects of leader LMX behaviours on leaders' job satisfaction and psychological detachment via positive affect and perceived competence.Practical implicationsLeadership development activities should raise leaders' awareness of the relevance of resourceful interactions with followers for leaders' own well-being. Organisations should create a working environment that facilitates high-quality exchanges amongst their members. The current trend towards increasing digital and less face-to-face collaboration may pose a risk to this important resource source for leaders.Originality/valueThese findings emphasise the day-to-day variation in leadership behaviours and that leaders' engagement in high-quality leader-follower interactions has the potential to stimulate a resource-building process for the benefit of leaders themselves.

PurposeThis conceptual article develops a theory-based set of themes that characterize how a leader and member interact based on their attachment style, motivation to lead and follow and their interpersonal orientation.Design/methodology/approachThis study proposes that the leader's and member's attachment styles, effectuated by their motivation to lead and/or follow and their interpersonal orientation, determine the emergence of primary (most frequently occurring) and secondary (less frequently occurring) leader–member relationship (LMR) themes.FindingsThe themes are labelled mutual affirmation, control, prestige, mutual indifference, conflict, imbalance and co-dependence. The article describes how these seven themes are grounded in their own streams of research, including leader–member exchange (LMX) as the basis for the first three, and how the themes vary in behaviors that generate the operational outcomes of psychological safety, proactivity and functionality, which, in turn, yield performance outcomes. Performance outcomes affect the leader's and member's perceptions of their relationship and their anticipation for the future. Leader–member similarity, situational pressures and perceptions of others' relationships moderate LMR development.Research limitations/implicationsEach theme reflects a pattern of interactions that produces degrees of psychological safety felt by the leader and member, proactivity of the leader and member to devote energy to their relationship and how well the leader and member function together. The behaviors, in turn, influence how the leader and member perceive each other and themselves and their anticipation for the future of the relationship.Practical implicationsThe model can be used by organizational development and human resource professionals to assess leader–member dyads and train leaders and members to be aware of factors that influence their relationship and how these factors affect performance outcomes.Originality/valueThe model contributes to the literature on leader–member relationships by suggesting a theory-based set of themes that characterize how the leader and team member interact and how their relationship develops.

PurposeThis study seeks to extend previous research on experts with mainlyad‐hocgroups from laboratory research to a field setting. Specifically, this study aims to investigate experts' relative importance in team performance. Expertise is differentiated into two categories (task functions and team functions) and the paper aims to investigate whether experts in task and team functions predict team performance over and above the team's average expertise level.Design/methodology/approachLongitudinal, multi‐source data from 96 professional software design engineers were used by means of hierarchical regression analyses.FindingsThe results show that both expert members in task functions (i.e. behavior that aids directly in the completion of work‐related activities) and the experts in team functions (i.e. facilitation of interpersonal interaction necessary to work together as a team) positively predicted team performance 12 months later over and above the team's average expertise level.Research limitations/implicationsSamples from other industry types are needed to examine the generalizability of the study findings to other occupational groups.Practical implicationsFor staffing, the findings suggest that experts are particularly important for the prediction of team performance. Organizations should invest effort into finding "star performers" in task and team functions in order to create effective teams.Originality/valueThis paper focuses on the relationship between experts (in task functions and team functions) and team performance. It extends prior research on team composition and complements expertise research: similar to cognitive ability and personality, it is important to take into account member expertise when examining how to manage the people mix within teams. Benefits of expertise are not restricted to laboratory research but are broadened to real‐world team settings.