This study examined how a team leader's sense of power affects team performance. The researchers hypothesized that:
1) A leader's sense of power would improve team performance by decreasing relationship conflict with team members.
2) Perceived task interdependence would moderate this relationship, such that the negative effect of a leader's sense of power on relationship conflict would be stronger when task interdependence is high.
3) Relationship conflict would mediate the link between a leader's sense of power and team performance, and this mediation effect would be stronger when task interdependence is high.
The researchers collected data from 70 work teams over two time periods to test this moderated mediation model.
2. (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Sense of power derives
from individuals feeling that they
Yan Rong and Baiyin Yang, Department of Leadership and
Organization Management, Tsinghua University; Lin Ma,
Department of Leadership and Organization Management,
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University.
This research has been supported by grants from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (71421061, 71232002, and
71502009).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Lin Ma, School of Economics and Management, Beihang
University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian, Beijing 100191,
People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]641
have the ability to influence the outcomes and experiences of
others (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Anderson et al. (2012)
showed that sense of power has a trait-like stable nature, and
personal sense of power is moderately consistent across
relationships. For example, individuals’ beliefs about their
power vis-à-vis friends are consistent with their beliefs about
power vis-à-vis their work supervisor. Accordingly, in this
study, leaders’ sense of power is defined as a trait-like state,
which refers to leaders’ perception of their power and influence
vis-à-vis subordinates in the workplace.
Sense of power predicts the cognition, emotion, and behavior of
the power holder (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). This statement
sheds light on the psychological process by which power can
affect team process and performance, about which little research
has been conducted within an organizational context. Whether
or not leaders’ sense of power can improve team performance
remains controversial (Williams, 2014).
Results in regard to sense of power are mixed. This may be
because the majority of relevant studies have been conducted in
a general social context, and hypotheses have been tested by
observing interactions between independent individuals (i.e.,
strangers) in laboratories (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). In the
3. organizational context, a strong interest interdependence exists
between power holders (i.e., leaders) and their counterparts
(i.e., subordinates), whereas interest interdependence between
strangers is weak in the social context (Lin, 2014). Therefore,
as interactions in an organizational context differ significantly
from those in a social context, results obtained in different
contexts are not necessarily consistent. Thus, the question of
sense of power in an organizational context and its effectiveness
in improving team performance, needs to be investigated to
resolve current debate (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015).
Because researchers usually explain the effect of leaders’ sense
of power by showing the action or goal orientation of the power
holder (Willis & Guinote, 2011), the mechanism of sense of
power from a relationship conflict perspective should be
demonstrated. Sense of power influences the social attention,
social cognition, and social behavior of the power holder, and is
an important influence on social interactions (Tost, 2015).
Leader–member relationship conflict refers to the quality of
social interactions between leaders and subordinates (Ilies,
Johnson, Judge, & Keeney, 2011), and thus can reflect the
effect of sense of power in team leaders’ social interactions.
Previous researchers have recognized the relationship between
power-related constructs and conflict, such as between power
dispersion and conflict resolution (Greer & van Kleef, 2010).
However, few have examined the relationship between the
psychological effect of power and the conflict level, and the
role of conflict in linking power to team performance.
Furthermore, even though some researchers have indicated that
task characteristics can influence the effectiveness of leaders’
sense of power (Tost et al., 2013), this hypothesis needs to be
empirically tested. Task interdependence is a key factor
defining work pattern, information flow, and communication
style in the workplace (Lin, 2014). At the group level, task
interdependence is considered a characteristic of the team as a
whole (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). At the individual level,
it is considered a characteristic of individual job incumbents
4. (Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012). In this study, we focused on
leaders’ perceived task interdependence. When leaders perceive
this to be high, they feel it necessary to rely on team members
to achieve goals (Lin, 2014). As a result, the importance of the
leader–member relationship is enhanced. It may be expected
that team leaders with a high sense of power would pay more
attention to the leader–member relationship in cases of high-
perceived task interdependence than they would in cases of low-
perceived task interdependence. It is therefore necessary to test
the joint effect of leaders’ sense of power and perceived task
interdependence on leader–member relationship conflict.
Thus, we explored the influence of leaders’ sense of power on
team performance in an organizational context. Previous
findings have revealed that power holders tend to have high
performance because they are action- or goal-oriented (Willis &
Guinote, 2011). However, we aimed to show that leader–
member relationship conflict plays a key role in linking leaders’
sense of power with team performance. We also aimed to
integrate research on power and job design by identifying
synergies between sense of power and perceived task
interdependence. This could help explain the boundary
conditions of the effect of sense of power.
Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
Leaders’ Sense of Power and Team Performance
We proposed, on the basis of the Approach and Inhibition
Theory (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson (2003), that leaders’
sense of power would be positively related to team performance,
because leaders with a high sense of power are more goal-
oriented and will use any available resource to lead the team
toward achieving team goals (Willis & Guinote, 2011).
Compared with leaders with a low sense of power, they exhibit
more self-sacrificing behavior to achieve organizational goals
(Hoogervorst, De Cremer, van Dijke, & Mayer, 2012).
Leaders with a high sense of power take more opportunities and
are more sensitive to goal-related information and approaches
5. than are those with a low sense of power, enabling the team to
achieve higher performance. They attend to goal-related
information more than to goal-irrelevant information (Slabu &
Guinote, 2010). This implies that sense of power can change
individuals’ cognition. When leading a team toward group
goals, leaders with a high sense of power are more likely to help
team members disentangle clues, point out feasible methods and
paths, and offer constructive guidance, thus improving team
performance (Galinsky, Rucker, & Magee, 2015).
Leaders with a high sense of power exhibit more self-controlled
behavior to achieve goals than do leaders with a low sense of
power. DeWall, Baumeister, Mead, and Vohs (2011) reported
that when performing independent tasks, leaders with a high
sense of power showed more self-control to achieve targets than
did leaders with a low sense of power. Leaders’ self-controlled
behavior will act as an example to team members and help them
to regulate their behavior and to progress toward achieving
targets, thus ensuring the high performance of the team.
Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Leaders’ sense of power will have a positive
effect on team performance.
Mediating Role of Leader–Member Relationship Conflict at the
Team Level
Leader–member relationship conflict refers to interpersonal
disharmony, tension, and friction that can occur during the
interaction between a leader and team members (Way,
Jimmieson, & Bordia, 2016). We believe that, in an
organizational context, leaders with a high sense of power will
seek to avoid conflict with team members to achieve team goals
and to improve team performance. In other words, we believe
that leader–member relationship conflict at the team level will
mediate the relationship between team leaders’ sense of power
and team performance.
Leaders’ sense of power is based on their social connections
with, and their influence on, team members. This encourages
6. them to regulate interpersonal behavior and decrease
relationship conflict with team members (F. Lee & Tiedens,
2001). Many theorists have treated power as a social relational
concept and defined sense of power as individuals’ perception
of their ability to influence others (Anderson et al., 2012). This
influence is strongly embedded in, and connected to, the
leader’s relationship with team members. To retain power, the
power holder must maintain connections and fair interpersonal
interactions with team members. As a result, powerful leaders
will carefully control their social behavior and pay attention to
their relationships with team members. For instance, sense of
power motivates reestablishing interpersonal connections
following social exclusion (Narayanan, Tai, & Kinias, 2013).
Therefore, high performance would be triggered by less intense
leader–member relationship conflict.
Compared with those with a low sense of power, leaders with a
high sense of power pay more attention to social interactions
and interpersonal skills, because building a favorable
relationship with team members is an effective way to achieve
team goals. Power holders in an organization need to comply
with their role and behave as required by the organization.
Otherwise, subordinates and superiors will lose trust in them
(Hoogervorst et al., 2012). Leaders with a high sense of power
usually behave in a manner consistent with group goals (Maner
& Mead, 2010). For example, in an experiment, when a task
required participants to pay more attention to interpersonal
relationships, those with a high sense of power differentiated
between counterparts by remembering personal characteristics
rather than accumulating stereotyped impressions. Thus,
individuals with a high sense of power performed better in these
tasks than did those with a low sense of power (Overbeck &
Park, 2006). In other words, social attention is similar to other
resources such as human and financial capital, and is a way for
power holders to achieve goals and enhance team performance.
Leaders with a high sense of power perceive and express more
positive emotions than do leaders with a low sense of power
7. (Keltner et al., 2003; Sturm & Antonakis, 2015), leading to less
interpersonal conflict and better team performance. In another
experiment, participants with a high sense of power were more
sensitive to rewards (i.e., their experiment partners liking
them), whereas those with a low sense of power were more
sensitive to threats (i.e., their experiment partners feeling anger
toward them; Anderson & Berdahl, 2002).
Leaders’ positive emotions are closely related to a favorable
leader–member relationship and contribute to high team
performance (Wang & Seibert, 2015). In contrast, negative
emotions hinder the quality of social interactions (Chepenik,
Cornew, & Farah, 2007). It can thus be proposed that sense of
power will increase leaders’ positive emotions and reduce their
negative emotions, and improve their social sensitivity and
interpersonal skills, hence reducing conflict with team
members. Leader–member relationship conflict is related to the
degree of satisfaction and organizational commitment of team
members, with less conflict being essential for improvement of
team performance (de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Therefore, we
proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Leader–member relationship conflict at the team
level will mediate the relationship between leaders’ sense of
power and team performance.
Moderating Role of Perceived Task Interdependence
Perceived task interdependence is the extent to which
individuals believe that they rely on skills and information from
others when performing a task (Shin et al., 2012). The extent to
which leaders perceive they have to depend on followers to
accomplish a goal could affect the importance of the leader–
member relationship. We believed that team leaders with a high
sense of power would pay more attention to leader–member
relationships in cases of high-perceived task interdependence
than they would in cases of low-perceived task interdependence.
Task interdependence underpins cooperation and stresses
common goals (Lin, 2014), and thus reduces the incidence of
8. conflict. Sense of power enhances the leader’s goal orientation,
which could be prosocial or self-interested.
Controversial results have been generated by previous
researchers’ attempts to determine how behavior is influenced
by sense of power (Williams, 2014). For instance, some
researchers found that as power corrupts, leaders with a high
sense of power tend to subordinate the interests of others
(Blader & Chen, 2012). Yet other findings revealed that sense
of power leads to interpersonal sensitivity (Schmid Mast, Jonas,
& Hall, 2009), implying that sense of power may lead to other-
oriented behavior. Lau and Cobb (2010) noted that a common
goal promoted cooperation and strengthened interpersonal ties,
thus reducing relationship conflict. As task interdependence
promotes common goals (Lin, 2014), we proposed that it would
strengthen the negative effect of leaders’ sense of power on
relationship conflict.
In highly interdependent tasks, the leader should rely on team
members to achieve goals, rather than working alone, thereby
paying more attention to team members. Whether or not sense
of power helps or hurts perspective taking depends on the extent
to which the focal individual is self-focused or other-focused
(Gordon & Chen, 2013). Thinking from the viewpoint of others
can enhance the ability of an individual with a high sense of
power to show empathy toward others, thus helping to resolve
conflict (Gordon & Chen, 2013). K. Lee (2008) also found that
an obliging conflict management style, in which the leader put
aside self-interest out of concern for others, was positively
related to conflict resolution and subordinate satisfaction.
When performing highly interdependent tasks, the leader and
team members need to cooperate closely (Lin, 2014). Otherwise,
relationship conflict will have a significant impact on goal
achievement and group performance. A high sense of power can
prompt the leader to fulfill duties and requirements with more
care and attention. Therefore, when the level of task
interdependence is perceived to be high, leaders with a high
sense of power will pay more attention to building a favorable
9. and harmonious leader–member relationship. As a result, there
is a strong negative relationship between sense of power and
relationship conflict in cases of high-perceived task
interdependence. In contrast, when the level of task
interdependence is perceived to be low, interpersonal
relationships play a less important role in achieving team goals.
As such, a leader with a high sense of power would pay less
attention to the construction of interpersonal relationships,
resulting in a weak negative relationship between sense of
power and relationship conflict. Therefore, we proposed the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Perceived task interdependence will moderate the
relationship between leaders’ sense of power and leader–
member relationship conflict at the team level, such that the
negative effect of leaders’ sense of power on relationship
conflict will be stronger in cases of high-perceived task
interdependence than in cases of low-perceived task
interdependence.
We further believed that the mediating effect of team-level
leader–member relationship conflict would also be moderated
by perceived task interdependence, as a moderated mediation
effect. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: When perceived task interdependence is high,
relationship conflict will play a strong mediating role in the link
between leaders’ sense of power and team performance, whereas
when perceived task interdependence is low, relationship
conflict will play a weak mediating role.
These hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.
Perceived task
interdependence
Sense of power
Leader-member
relationship conflict
10. Team performance
Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were from a large company in south China. With
the assistance of the human resources manager, we distributed
paper and pencil surveys to all 78 team leaders, 42 senior
managers responsible for directing the team leaders, and 403
team members (the team leaders’ subordinates), who voluntarily
participated in the survey. Completed questionnaires were
received from 369 team members, 75 team leaders, and 42
senior managers, yielding an initial response rate of 91.56%,
96.15%, and 100%, respectively. Five teams were excluded
because they had fewer than three members. In the final sample,
of the 364 team members, 63.3% were women aged between 20
and 58 years, of the 70 team leaders, 62.9% were women aged
between 25 and 59 years, and of the 42 senior managers, 21%
were women aged between 32 and 59 years. The teams had
diverse functions, which included marketing, finance, research
and development, general management, and manufacturing. A
two-wave data collection approach was used, whereby the
second data collection (Time 2) was completed six months after
the first data collection (Time 1).
Measures
Senior managers evaluated team performance, team leaders
reported sense of power and task interdependence, and team
members reported on leader– member relationship conflict.
Team performance, sense of power, and task interdependence
were reported using items scored on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Leader–member relationship conflict was reported using items
scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sense of power, task
interdependence, and leader–member relationship conflict were
11. evaluated at Time 1 and team performance was evaluated at
Time 2.
Sense of power. Sense of power was evaluated using the six
highest loading items from Anderson et al.’s (2012) eight-item
measurement. A sample item is “In my team, I can get team
members to do what I want.” Cronbach’s alpha = .70.
Leader–member relationship conflict. The four-item scale used
to evaluate leader–member relationship conflict was adapted
from Jehn’s (1995) scale. A sample item is “There are a lot of
personality conflicts between the team leader and me.”
Cronbach’s alpha = .88. Within-group agreement indicated
sufficient homogeneity of within-group responses (Rwg = .80).
Intraclass correlations (ICC) were statistically significant,
ICC(1) = .07 and ICC(2) = .30, p < .05. Aggregation of
individual responses to create a team-level variable was thus
justified.
Perceived task interdependence. The four-item scale that we
used to evaluate perceived task interdependence was adapted
from Van der Vegt and Janssen’s (2003) questionnaire. A
sample item is “I need to collaborate with team members to
perform my job well.” Cronbach’s alpha = .75.
Team performance. Team performance was assessed using
Ancona and Caldwell’s (1992) six-item scale. A sample item is
“This team is very efficient.” Cronbach’s alpha = .71.
Control variables. Structural power was controlled, as it is
related to sense of power and team performance (Tost, 2015).
We used hierarchical status to measure structural power, based
on Anderson, Spataro, and Flynn’s (2008) study. All team
leaders were asked to indicate their hierarchical status as one of
four levels: nonmanagement, line management, middle
management, or senior/ executive management. Team size and
the demographic characteristics (gender, age, and education
background) of team leaders were also included as control
variables as they could influence team performance (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Hoogervorst et al., 2012). Results
The results of the descriptive analysis are shown in Table 1.
12. The team leader’s sense of power was positively related to team
performance (r = .32, p < .01), and
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Study
Variables
Variable
M SD
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
1
1
. Team size 10.80 15.21 -
. Gender (1 = male) 0.37 0.49 -.07 -
2
3
. Age (years) 39.49 8.35 .
21
†
.44
***
-
. Education
4
a
2.44 1.25 -.23
†
.51
***
-.16 -
34
. Tenure (years) 4.04 2.93 .
5
**
.28
*
14. **
-.15 (.75)
. Team performance
5.33 0.67 -.02 -.03 .10 -.12 -.11 -.05 .32
10
**
-.40
**
.20 (.71)
Note. N
= 70.
a
Coded as 1 = middle school and below, 2 = high school, 3 =
bachelor’s degree, 4 = master’s degree, 5 = doctoral degree.
b
Coded as 1
=
nonmanagement, 2 = line management, 3 = middle
management, 4 = senior/executive management. Cronbach’s
α
are shown in parentheses on the
diagonal.
†
p
< .10,
*
p
< .05,
**
p
< .01,
***
15. p
< .001.
team-level leader–member relationship conflict was negatively
related to team performance (r = -.40, p < .01). The relationship
between the team leader’s sense of power and hierarchical
status was significantly positive (r = .24, p < .05), but the
magnitude of the correlation was low, indicating that they are
different constructs.
When the team leader’s sense of power was not included, there
was no significant effect of hierarchical status on team
performance (Table 2, M2; b = .01, p = .97), and no significant
effect of other control variables. When sense of power was
included, it was positively related to team performance (Table
2, M3; b = .37, p < .01), but there was no significant effect of
other control variables. Hypothesis 1 was therefore supported.
Sense of power was negatively related to team-level leader–
member relationship conflict (Table 2, M8; b = -.16, p < .01).
When team-level leader–member relationship conflict was
included in the model to predict team performance, it was
negatively related to team performance (Table 2, M4; b = -.68,
p < .01), and sense of power still had a significant positive
effect on team performance (Table 2, M4; b = .26, p < .05). In
addition, the leader–member relationship conflict made a
significant contribution to the model (ΔR2 = .10, p < .01). The
unstandardized indirect effect (ab) and confidence intervals (CI)
were obtained by bias corrected and accelerated (BCa)
bootstrapping. Results showed that the indirect effect was
positive and significant, ab = 0.11, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.26]. Thus,
team-level leader–member relationship conflict partially
mediated the relationship between sense of power and team
performance. Hypothesis 2 was thus supported. Hierarchical
status did not significantly predict leader–member relationship
conflict (Table 2, M8; b = .05, p = .54). When hierarchical
status was controlled, sense of power still had a significant
positive effect on relationship conflict, indicating that
16. psychological sense of power had incremental validity beyond
structural power.
The interaction of sense of power and perceived task
interdependence had a significant effect on team-level leader–
member relationship conflict (Table 2, M10; b = -.21, p < .01),
and the magnitude of R2 change was significant (ΔR2 = .10, p <
.01). As shown in Figure 2, the negative effect of sense of
power on team-level leader–member relationship conflict was
weak and not significant when perceived task interdependence
was low (slope = -0.05, p = .52), but was strong and significant
when perceived task interdependence was high (slope = -0.32, p
< .001). Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.
We used Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes’ (2007) method to
calculate the point estimate and bias-corrected and accelerated
(BCa) CI for the moderated mediation effect. The bootstrap
results showed that the indirect effect of sense of power on team
performance mediated by team-level leader–member
relationship conflict was positive and significant, ab = 0.16,
95% BCa CI = [0.04, 0.42],
Table 2.
Regression Results
Variable Team performance Team-level leader–member
relationship conflict
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10
Team size .00 .00 -.00 -.00 -.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Gender (1 = male) -.01 -.01 .05 -.03 -.04 -.09 -.09 -.11 -.13 -.08
Age (years) .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
Education -.05 -.05 -.11 -.10 -.07 -.01 -.02 .01 .01 -.02
Tenure (years) -.03 -.03 .00 -.00 .01 .01 .01 -.01 -.01 -.01
Hierarchical status .01 -.08 -.05 -.07 .01 .05 .05 .05
Sense of power .37
**
.26
*
.32
17. *
-.16
**
-.15
*
-.19
**
Relationship conflict -.68
**
-.50
*
Task interdependence .15 -.04 -.07
Sense of power x task interdependence .28
†
-.21
**
Δ
R
2
.00 .14
**
.10
**
.05 .00 .10
**
.01 .10
**
R
2
.04 .04 .18 .27 .33 .02 .02 .13 .13 .23
Note. N
= 70. Values are unstandardized coefficients.
†
p
18. < .10,
*
p
< .05,
**
p
< .01.
when perceived task interdependence was high, but was not
significant, ab = 0.02, 95% BCa CI = [-0.09, 0.18], when
perceived task interdependence was low. Hypothesis 4 was thus
supported.
3
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2
Relationship conflict
Low sense of power
High sense of power
Low perceived task interdependence
High perceived task interdependence
Figure 2. The moderating effect of perceived task
interdependence.Discussion
In this study, we showed that team leaders’ sense of power had
a positive effect on team performance, that team-level leader–
19. member relationship conflict mediated the effect of sense of
power on team performance, that perceived task
interdependence moderated the relationship between sense of
power and leader–member relationship conflict (whereby the
negative relationship was stronger when perceived task
interdependence was high), and that perceived task
interdependence moderated the mediating effect of relationship
conflict on the relationship between sense of power and team
performance.
Theoretical Implications
Our findings contribute to the power literature in a number of
ways. First, we provided evidence of the effect of sense of
power on team performance. There are mixed results in regard
to the effect of sense of power on emotion, cognition, and
behavior (Hoogervorst et al., 2012; Tost et al., 2013). As most
previous studies have been conducted in a general social context
with independent individuals (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015), their
results may not be directly applicable to sense of power in an
organizational context. In the latter context, team members have
a common goal and close relationship, and as a result, leaders
with a high sense of power are motivated to serve the
organizational interest. The connection between leader and
employees would be expected to strengthen the positive effect
of the leader’s sense of power and to weaken its negative effect.
Researchers have also investigated wider aspects of power, such
as the subjective sense of power and role- or structure-based
power. We found that the team leaders’ sense of power was
positively related to team performance, and the effect of
structural power was not salient. Thus, our findings
differentiate between structural and psychological aspects of
power. In sum, by emphasizing the managerial context, we
demonstrated the incremental validity of leaders’ sense of
power beyond structural power in organizations.
Second, we have responded to the call for more research on the
mechanisms that explain the effect of sense of power (Keltner et
20. al., 2003). Although researchers have identified the important
effect of sense of power on power holders’ social behavior
(Anderson & Berdahl, 2002), to our knowledge, no one has used
relationship conflict to explain the power-performance
relationship. In this study, as we showed that leader–member
relationship conflict links leaders’ sense of power to team
performance, we have provided a new perspective on the power-
performance relationship. Our results also indicate a novel link
between psychological power and conflict level. We showed
that sense of power affects leader–member interaction and
impacts on relationship conflict. We propose that subjective
sense of power is not necessarily related to reward and
punishment, but is a kind of trait-like psychological state. A
high sense of power can stimulate a leader’s goal-oriented
behavior and positive emotions, and help build positive leader–
member relationships (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015).
Third, we showed that perceived task interdependence was a
conditional factor that influenced the relationship between sense
of power and relationship conflict. Sense of power affected the
behavior of power holders through multiple paths, of which
some led to positive outcomes and others to negative outcomes.
Previous findings have been mixed in regard to leaders’ sense
of power and social behavior. Contextual factors that influence
the relationship between leaders’ sense of power and behavior
need to be identified. Previous findings suggest that individual
differences, goal orientation, and positional insecurity can act
as essential contextual factors affecting whether or not power
leads to self-focused or prosocial behavior (Maner & Mead,
2010; Williams, 2014). In contrast, our findings show that
perceived task characteristics defined interactions and work-
flow patterns in the workplace, and thus moderated the effect of
sense of power on relationship conflict. In this way, we
identified a new conditional factor for sense of power, and
linked power theory to job design theory. In sum, our findings
shed light on the importance of task characteristics in the
conditional factors of sense of power.
21. Practical Implications
There are several important practical implications for
management in this study. First, organizations should cultivate
managers’ sense of power. Leaders with a high sense of power
exhibit more self-controlled behavior and take more
opportunities than those with a low sense of power (Sturm &
Antonakis, 2015), thus helping their teams achieve performance
goals. Managers can activate their sense of power in several
ways, for example, recalling an experience in which they had
power. Second, our findings indicate that increasing leaders’
sense of power is a useful way to improve the quality of leader–
member interactions. Leaders with a high sense of power will
pay more attention to their relationship with team members,
seeking to avoid interpersonal conflict and achieve the team
targets. Third, our findings indicate that increasing task
interdependence is important in job design. Participation in
highly interdependent tasks will promote cooperation and
information sharing, strengthen interpersonal ties to achieve
common goals, and help to reduce the incidence of conflict.
Leaders need to adjust their behavior according to the degree of
task interdependence, and should attach more importance to
building a favorable and interactive relationship with team
members when perceived task interdependence is low, as this
may help to prevent relationship conflict.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are some limitations in this study. First, we investigated
the effect of sense of power on team performance, but as sense
of power may also affect team members’ attitudes and extrarole
behavior, these variables should be tested in future studies.
Second, we tested the effect of sense of power at the team level
only. Future researchers can use a multilevel method to
investigate the effect of sense of power at different levels.
Third, we did not analyze the relationship between sense of
power and structural power in great detail. Some researchers
22. have reported that sense of power can affect team processes
only when the focal individual has a formal role (Tost et al.,
2013). Future researchers should identify the difference
between subjective sense of power and structural power and
analyze the relationship between these two variables.References
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and
design: Predictors of new product team performance.
Organization Science, 3, 321–341. https://doi.org/dcm7bc
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of
power: Examining the effects of power on approach and
inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. https://doi.org/cthkdg
Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal
sense of power. Journal of Personality,
80, 313–344. https://doi.org/crtqkk
Anderson, C., Spataro, S. E., & Flynn, F. J. (2008). Personality
and organizational culture as determinants of influence. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93, 702–710. https://doi.org/bkrzt4
Blader, S. L., & Chen, Y.-R. (2012). Differentiating the effects
of status and power: A justice perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 994–1014.
https://doi.org/ fzn9vw
Chepenik, L. G., Cornew, L. A., & Farah, M. J. (2007). The
influence of sad mood on cognition.
Emotion, 7, 802–811. https://doi.org/c84thv de Wit, F. R.,
Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup
conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
360–390. https://doi.org/ccdw8t
DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Mead, N. L., & Vohs, K. D.
(2011). How leaders self-regulate their task performance:
Evidence that power promotes diligence, depletion, and disdain.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 47–65.
https://doi.org/dcj43p
Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., & Magee, J. C. (2015). Power:
Past findings, present considerations, and future directions. In
M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. A. Simpson, & J. F. Dovidio
23. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology:
Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 421–460). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/bnxc
Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2013). Does power help or hurt?
The moderating role of self–other focus on power and
perspective-taking in romantic relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1097–1110. https://doi.org/bj3b
Greer, L. L., & van Kleef, G. A. (2010). Equality versus
differentiation: The effects of power dispersion on group
interaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1032–1044.
https://doi.org/ bknrjc
Hoogervorst, N., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M.
(2012). When do leaders sacrifice? The effects of sense of
power and belongingness on leader self-sacrifice. The
Leadership Quarterly, 23, 883–896. https://doi.org/mmr
Ilies, R., Johnson, M. D., Judge, T. A., & Keeney, J. (2011). A
within-individual study of interpersonal conflict as a work
stressor: Dispositional and situational moderators. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32, 44–64. https://doi.org/bnwmfv
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits
and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 40, 256–282. https://doi.org/cnp
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power,
approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
https://doi.org/fjpkks
Lau, R. S., & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the
connections between relationship conflict and performance: The
intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31, 898–917. https://doi.org/d87c99
Lee, F., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). 2. Is it lonely at the top?: The
independence and interdependence of power holders. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 23, 43–91. https://doi.org/dsq2w4
Lee, K. L. (2008). An examination between the relationships of
conflict management styles and employees’ satisfaction.
International Journal of Business and Management, 3, 11–25.
https:// doi.org/bj3c
24. Lin, L.-H. (2014). Organizational structure and acculturation in
acquisitions perspectives of congruence theory and task
interdependence. Journal of Management, 40, 1831–1856.
https:// doi.org/bj3d
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension
between leadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group
goals for the sake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99, 482–497. https://doi.org/c576tc
Narayanan, J., Tai, K., & Kinias, Z. (2013). Power motivates
interpersonal connection following social exclusion.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122,
257–265.
https://doi.org/3fn
Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2006). Powerful perceivers,
powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99,
227–243. https://doi.org/dj2wpt
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007).
Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods,
and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–
227. https:// doi.org/fwd4vb
Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., & Hall, J. A. (2009). Give a person
power and he or she will show interpersonal sensitivity: The
phenomenon and its why and when. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 835–850. https://doi.org/c6z4wc
Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive
team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross-
level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197–
212. https://doi.org/2f6
Slabu, L., & Guinote, A. (2010). Getting what you want: Power
increases the accessibility of active goals. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 344–349.
https://doi.org/df5q77
Sturm, R. E., & Antonakis, J. (2015). Interpersonal power: A
review, critique, and research agenda. Journal of Management,
41, 136–163. https://doi.org/bj3f
25. Tost, L. P. (2015). When, why, and how do powerholders “feel
the power”? Examining the links between structural and
psychological power and reviving the connection between power
and responsibility. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35,
29–56. https://doi.org/bj3g
Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power
makes others speechless: The negative impact of leader power
on team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
1465–1486. https://doi.org/bj3h
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of
interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of
Management, 29, 729–751. https://doi.org/frwktt
Wang, G., & Seibert, S. E. (2015). The impact of leader emotion
display frequency on follower performance: Leader surface
acting and mean emotion display as boundary conditions. The
Leadership Quarterly, 26, 577–593. https://doi.org/bj3j
Way, K. A., Jimmieson, N. J., & Bordia, P. (2016). Shared
perceptions of supervisor conflict management style: A cross-
level moderator of relationship conflict and employee outcomes.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 27, 25–49.
https://doi.org/bj3k
Williams, M. J. (2014). Serving the self from the seat of power:
Goals and threats predict leaders’ self-interested behavior.
Journal of Management, 40, 1365–1395. https://doi.org/bj3m
Willis, G. B., & Guinote, A. (2011). The effects of social power
on goal content and goal striving: A situated perspective. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 706–719.
https://doi.org/ cbf9kc
642 SENSE OF POWER AND TEAM PERFORMANCE
SENSE OF POWER AND TEAM PERFORMANCE 655
Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international
journal is the property of Society for Personality Research and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
![(Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012). Sense of power derives
from individuals feeling that they
Yan Rong and Baiyin Yang, Department of Leadership and
Organization Management, Tsinghua University; Lin Ma,
Department of Leadership and Organization Management,
School of Economics and Management, Beihang University.
This research has been supported by grants from the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (71421061, 71232002, and
71502009).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Lin Ma, School of Economics and Management, Beihang
University, No. 37 Xueyuan Road, Haidian, Beijing 100191,
People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]641
have the ability to influence the outcomes and experiences of
others (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Anderson et al. (2012)
showed that sense of power has a trait-like stable nature, and
personal sense of power is moderately consistent across
relationships. For example, individuals’ beliefs about their
power vis-à-vis friends are consistent with their beliefs about
power vis-à-vis their work supervisor. Accordingly, in this
study, leaders’ sense of power is defined as a trait-like state,
which refers to leaders’ perception of their power and influence
vis-à-vis subordinates in the workplace.
Sense of power predicts the cognition, emotion, and behavior of
the power holder (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). This statement
sheds light on the psychological process by which power can
affect team process and performance, about which little research
has been conducted within an organizational context. Whether
or not leaders’ sense of power can improve team performance
remains controversial (Williams, 2014).
Results in regard to sense of power are mixed. This may be
because the majority of relevant studies have been conducted in
a general social context, and hypotheses have been tested by
observing interactions between independent individuals (i.e.,
strangers) in laboratories (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015). In the]()