Managing Team Conscientiousness Diversity: The Role of Leader Emotion-Regulation Knowledge

Astrid C. Homan,Gerben A. van Kleef

doi:10.1177/10464964211045015

Abstract

Team members may vary in the degree to which they are self-motivating, diligent, and organized, but effects of such conscientiousness diversity are poorly understood. We propose that conscientiousness diversity effects depend on the team leader’s knowledge about managing negative affective responses—that is emotion regulation knowledge. Data of two time-lagged team studies show that for teams with leaders with lower emotion-regulation knowledge, conscientiousness diversity was negatively associated with team satisfaction (Study 1 and 2), team cohesion and information elaboration (Study 2), which in turn influenced team performance (Study 2). These negative relationships reversed in teams with leaders with higher emotion-regulation knowledge.

Highlights

Team members may vary in the degree to which they are self-motivating, diligent, and organized, but effects of such conscientiousness diversity are poorly understood
In line with Hypothesis 1, when leader emotion-regulation knowledge (ERK) was relatively low (−1 SD), conscientiousness diversity was negatively related to team satisfaction, B = −3.8939, SE = 1.6468, t(24) = −2.37, p = .026, 95% CI [−7.2928, −0.4950]
In teams with high ERK leaders, conscientiousness diversity was indirectly positively associated with team performance via enhanced cohesion and information elaboration

Summary

Introduction

Team members may vary in the degree to which they are self-motivating, diligent, and organized, but effects of such conscientiousness diversity are poorly understood. On the basis of such findings, it has been argued that teams should be composed of members with high conscientiousness, and that diversity on this trait should be avoided (Bell, 2007; Colbert et al, 2014; Humphrey et al, 2007), because conscientiousness diversity is believed to instigate negative team processes and outcomes such as resentment, misunderstandings, and reduced satisfaction and performance (Barrick et al, 1998; Peeters et al, 2006). Meta-analyses found no overall relationship between conscientiousness diversity and team outcomes (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Prewett et al, 2009), and individual studies yielded positive as well as negative effects. Heterogeneity—operationalized as the standard deviation of conscientiousness on the team level—was thought to damage intragroup relations by eliciting negative emotional responses such as resentment and bitterness between members who are dependable and organized, and members who are not (Anderson, 2009; Halfhill et al, 2005; Humphrey et al, 2007)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion