The double-edged sword effects of leader workaholism on team performance

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01018

Abstract

Abstract:

With the escalation of industry competitive pressure, workaholic leaders are prevalent in the workplace. However, the effectiveness of workaholic leaders in organizations remains controversial both in practice and in academia. Drawing on social information processing theory, this study examined the double-edged sword effects of workaholic leaders on team performance and revealed the underlying mechanism. Based on a multi-time and multisource survey of a property management service company, the results showed that, on the one hand, leader workaholism was positively related to team job involvement, resulting in higher team performance; on the other hand, leader workaholism heightened team negative affect, thus decreasing team performance. Team task significance moderated the above two mediating paths. Specifically, when team task significance was higher, the negative mediating effect of team negative affect was attenuated, and the positive mediating effect of team job involvement was enhanced. Our findings contribute to the dialectical understanding of the effectiveness of leader workaholism and provide insights for organizations to cultivate qualified managers.

Key words: leader workaholism, team performance, team job involvement, team negative affect, team task significance

SHE Zhuolin, LI Quan, YANG Baiyin, YANG Bin. (2021). The double-edged sword effects of leader workaholism on team performance. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(9), 1018-1031.

Figures/Tables 9

References 50

[1]	Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
[2]	Allan B. A., Duffy R. D., & Collisson B. (2018). Task significance and performance: Meaningfulness as a mediator. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1),172-182. doi: 10.1177/1069072716680047 URL
[3]	Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46(4),458-474.
[4]	Campion M. A., Papper E. M., & Medsker G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49(2),429-452. doi: 10.1111/peps.1996.49.issue-2 URL
[5]	Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),234-246. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234 URL
[6]	Chi, N. W., & Huang, J. C. (2014). Mechanisms linking transformational leadership and team performance: The mediating roles of team goal orientation and group affective tone. Group & Organization Management, 39(3),300-325.
[7]	Clark M. A., Stevens G. W., Michel J. S., & Zimmerman, L. (2016). Workaholism among leaders:Implications for their own and their followers’ well-being. In W. A. Gentry & C. Clerkin. (Eds.), The Role of Leadership in Occupational Stress (pp. 1-31). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
[8]	Cole M. S., Walter F., & Bruch H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5),945-958. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.945 URL
[9]	Dionne S. D., Yammarino F. J., Howell J. P., & Villa J. (2005). Substitutes for leadership, or not. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1),169-193. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.012 URL
[10]	Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1),1-22. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 URL
[11]	Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). Effect of commitment, job involvement and teams on customer satisfaction and profit. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 13(3/4),90-101. doi: 10.1108/13527590710759847 URL
[12]	Friedman, S. D., & Lobel, S. (2003). The happy workaholic: A role model for employees. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17(3),87-98.
[13]	Gonzalez-Mulé E., Courtright S. H., DeGeest D., Seong J. Y., & Hong D. S. (2016). Channeled autonomy: The joint effects of autonomy and feedback on team performance through organizational goal clarity. Journal of Management, 42(7),2018-2033. doi: 10.1177/0149206314535443 URL
[14]	Gorgievski M. J., Moriano J. A., & Bakker A. B. (2014). Relating work engagement and workaholism to entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2),106-121. doi: 10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0169 URL
[15]	Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1),108-124. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 pmid: 18211139
[16]	Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2007). Chapter 2 the pivotal role of negative affect in understanding the effects of process conflict on group performance. Affect and Groups, 10,21-43.
[17]	Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2),159-170. doi: 10.1037/h0076546 URL
[18]	Harman H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press.
[19]	Hayes A. F.(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation,and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
[20]	Hiller N. J., DeChurch L. A., Murase T., & Doty D. (2011). Searching for outcomes of leadership: A 25-year review. Journal of Management, 37(4),1137-1177. doi: 10.1177/0149206310393520 URL
[21]	Jiao, Y. F. (2019). Gyroscopic workaholic. Workmates, (8),12-13.
[22]	Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3),341-349. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341 URL
[23]	Koopman J., Scott B. A., Matta F. K., Conlon D. E., & Dennerlein T. (2019). Ethical leadership as a substitute for justice enactment: An information-processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(9),1103-1116. doi: 10.1037/apl0000403 pmid: 30843704
[24]	Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY:Springer.
[25]	Li Q., & She, Z. L. (2020). The impact of workaholic leaders on followers’ continuous learning. In M. London. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lifelong Learning, Second Edition (pp. 1-13). Oxford University Press.
[26]	Li Q., She Z. L., Yang B. Y., & Qi M. Z. (2018). The mechanism of how workaholic CEO influences organizational performance. Chinese Journal of Management, 15(10),996-1002.
[27]	Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6),1321-1339. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321 URL
[28]	Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus version 7 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
[29]	Ng T. W. H., Sorensen K. L., & Feldman D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1),111-136. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379 URL
[30]	Pan, S. Y. (2018). Do workaholic hotel supervisors provide family supportive supervision? A role identity perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 68,59-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.09.013 URL
[31]	Parker, S. K. (2014). Beyond motivation: Job and work design for development, health, ambidexterity, and more. Annual Review of Psychology, 65,661-691. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115208 URL
[32]	Paulsen H. F. K., Klonek F. E., Schneider K., & Kauffeld S. (2016). Group affective tone and team performance: A week-level study in project teams. Frontiers in Communication, 1,7-10.
[33]	Peng J., Wang Z., & Chen X. (2018). Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2),419-433. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3799-0 URL
[34]	Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2),77-98. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2012.679848 URL
[35]	Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84(2),265-288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.2.265 URL
[36]	Rotenberry, P. F., & Moberg, P. J. (2007). Assessing the impact of job involvement on performance. Management Research News, 30(3),203-215. doi: 10.1108/01409170710733278 URL
[37]	Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2),224-253. pmid: 10307892
[38]	Schaufeli W. B., Shimazu A., & Taris T. W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43(4),320-348. doi: 10.1177/1069397109337239 URL
[39]	She Z. L., Li Q., Kong Y. C., & Yang B. Y. (2020). Can workaholic leader promote follower job performance? The moderating role of follower work centrality. Human Resources Development of China, 37(6),44-55.
[40]	Sy T., Côté S., & Saavedra R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2),295-305. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295 URL
[41]	Tanghe J., Wisse B., & van der Flier, H. (2010). The formation of group affect and team effectiveness: The moderating role of identification. British Journal of Management, 21(2),340-358.
[42]	Tao, X. J. (2014). How to cultivate workaholics. Enterprise Management,(6),34-35.
[43]	Wang L., Owens B. P., Li J. J., & Shi L. (2018). Exploring the affective impact, boundary conditions, and antecedents of leader humility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9),1019-1038. doi: 10.1037/apl0000314 pmid: 29781636
[44]	Watson D., Clark L. A., & Tellegen A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),1063-1070. pmid: 3397865
[45]	Xiong H. X., Zhang J., Ye B. J., Zheng X., & Sun P. Z. (2012). Common method variance effects and the models of statistical approaches for controlling it. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(5),757-769. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00757 URL
[46]	Xu, S. Y., & Zhu, J. Q. (2017). Ethical leadership and pro-social rule breaking: A dual process model. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(1),106-115. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00106 URL
[47]	Yan A. M., Guo H., Xie J. L., Hao Y. C., & Ma H. (2020). How ethical leadership improves employee taking charge: The effect of felt obligation for constructive change and career calling. Human Resources Development of China, 37(11),50-61.
[48]	Yang F., Huang X., & Wu L. (2019). Experiencing meaningfulness climate in teams: How spiritual leadership enhances team effectiveness when facing uncertain tasks. Human Resource Management, 58(2),155-168. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21943
[49]	Zalesny, M. D., & Ford, J. K. (1990). Extending the social information processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(2),205-246. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90037-A URL
[50]	Zhang Y., Zhou F., & Mao J. (2018). Ethical leadership and follower moral actions: Investigating an emotional linkage. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,1881. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01881 URL

Variable		Items	Standardized factor loading	CITC	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE
Leader workaholism		It is important to me to work hard even when I do not enjoy what I am doing.	0.78	0.75	0.95	0.95	0.63
		I feel that there is something inside me that drives me to work hard.	0.78	0.78
		I feel obliged to work hard, even when it is not enjoyable.	0.86	0.85
		I feel guilty when I take time off work.	0.76	0.76
		It is hard for me to relax when I am not working.	0.81	0.79
		I seem to be in a hurry and racing against the clock.	0.81	0.79
		I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called it quits.	0.84	0.83
		I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire.	0.78	0.77
		I spend more time working than on socializing with friends, on hobbies, or on leisure activities.	0.79	0.79
		I find myself doing two or three things at one time such as eating lunch and writing a memo, while taking on the telephone.	0.74	0.74
Team job involvement		Involvement in our present job is important.	0.75	0.70	0.91	0.91	0.55
		To us, our job is a critical part of who we are.	0.79	0.74
		We are very much involved in our job.	0.78	0.73
		We work very hard as a team.	0.80	0.75
		Most of our interests are centered around our job.	0.75	0.69
		We have very strong ties with our job which would be very difficult to break.	0.83	0.79
		Things at work are very important to us.	0.67	0.65
		We are job-oriented.	0.72	0.70
		We consider our job to be very central to our existence.	0.66	0.65
		Our team likes to be absorbed in our job most of the time.	0.62	0.61
Team negative affect	Working in the team makes me feel irritable.	0.91	0.87	0.96	0.95	0.81
	Working in the team makes me feel distressed.	0.92	0.89
	Working in the team makes me feel upset.	0.93	0.90
	Working in the team makes me feel nervous.	0.86	0.85
	Working in the team makes me feel jittery.	0.87	0.87
Task significance	The results of our work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people.	0.82	0.77	0.91	0.91	0.73
	Our job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things.	0.88	0.83
	Our job has a large impact on people outside the organization.	0.86	0.81
	The work we perform has a significant impact on people outside the organization.	0.86	0.81
Team Performance	This team achieves its goals.	0.84	0.75	0.87	0.87	0.63
	This team achieves high performance.	0.86	0.76
	This team makes a great contribution to the company.	0.73	0.67
	This team is very successful in terms of overall achievement.	0.73	0.67

Variable		Items	Standardized factor loading	CITC	Cronbach’s α	CR	AVE
Leader workaholism		It is important to me to work hard even when I do not enjoy what I am doing.	0.78	0.75	0.95	0.95	0.63
		I feel that there is something inside me that drives me to work hard.	0.78	0.78
		I feel obliged to work hard, even when it is not enjoyable.	0.86	0.85
		I feel guilty when I take time off work.	0.76	0.76
		It is hard for me to relax when I am not working.	0.81	0.79
		I seem to be in a hurry and racing against the clock.	0.81	0.79
		I find myself continuing to work after my coworkers have called it quits.	0.84	0.83
		I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire.	0.78	0.77
		I spend more time working than on socializing with friends, on hobbies, or on leisure activities.	0.79	0.79
		I find myself doing two or three things at one time such as eating lunch and writing a memo, while taking on the telephone.	0.74	0.74
Team job involvement		Involvement in our present job is important.	0.75	0.70	0.91	0.91	0.55
		To us, our job is a critical part of who we are.	0.79	0.74
		We are very much involved in our job.	0.78	0.73
		We work very hard as a team.	0.80	0.75
		Most of our interests are centered around our job.	0.75	0.69
		We have very strong ties with our job which would be very difficult to break.	0.83	0.79
		Things at work are very important to us.	0.67	0.65
		We are job-oriented.	0.72	0.70
		We consider our job to be very central to our existence.	0.66	0.65
		Our team likes to be absorbed in our job most of the time.	0.62	0.61
Team negative affect	Working in the team makes me feel irritable.	0.91	0.87	0.96	0.95	0.81
	Working in the team makes me feel distressed.	0.92	0.89
	Working in the team makes me feel upset.	0.93	0.90
	Working in the team makes me feel nervous.	0.86	0.85
	Working in the team makes me feel jittery.	0.87	0.87
Task significance	The results of our work are likely to significantly affect the lives of other people.	0.82	0.77	0.91	0.91	0.73
	Our job itself is very significant and important in the broader scheme of things.	0.88	0.83
	Our job has a large impact on people outside the organization.	0.86	0.81
	The work we perform has a significant impact on people outside the organization.	0.86	0.81
Team Performance	This team achieves its goals.	0.84	0.75	0.87	0.87	0.63
	This team achieves high performance.	0.86	0.76
	This team makes a great contribution to the company.	0.73	0.67
	This team is very successful in terms of overall achievement.	0.73	0.67

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Leader gender	0.62	0.49
2. Leader age	38.52	9.03	0.11
3. Leader education	2.32	0.67	-0.04	-0.26^**
4. Team size	4.88	1.10	0.06	-0.07	0.11
5. Team tenure	5.03	1.94	0.03	-0.07	-0.04	0.07
6. Property size: small	0.41	0.49	-0.01	-0.01	0.12	-0.03	-0.03
7. Property size: medium	0.54	0.50	0.01	0.04	-0.13	0.02	0.04	-0.68^***
8. Property rank: ordinary	0.38	0.49	-0.05	-0.05	0.09	0.09	0.09	-0.14	0.05
9. Property rank: medium	0.48	0.50	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.01	-0.08	0.14	-0.04	-0.48^***
10. Leader workaholism	4.50	0.98	-0.01	-0.21^*	0.05	-0.03	0.12	0.02	-0.09	-0.03	-0.02	0.79
11. Team job involvement	4.38	0.55	-0.11	-0.15	0.06	-0.09	-0.03	0.19	-0.21^*	-0.25^*	0.19	0.35^***	0.75
12. Team negative affect	3.65	0.97	-0.03	-0.06	0.10	0.17	-0.02	-0.01	-0.03	0.01	0.06	0.43^***	-0.06	0.90
13. Task significance	3.72	1.06	-0.14	-0.19	0.05	-0.02	-0.08	0.08	-0.04	-0.00	0.04	0.06	0.14	-0.03	0.85
14. Team performance	4.84	0.76	-0.08	-0.15	0.16	-0.08	0.05	-0.12	0.11	0.03	0.08	0.18	0.38^***	-0.19^*	-0.11	0.79

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1. Leader gender	0.62	0.49
2. Leader age	38.52	9.03	0.11
3. Leader education	2.32	0.67	-0.04	-0.26^**
4. Team size	4.88	1.10	0.06	-0.07	0.11
5. Team tenure	5.03	1.94	0.03	-0.07	-0.04	0.07
6. Property size: small	0.41	0.49	-0.01	-0.01	0.12	-0.03	-0.03
7. Property size: medium	0.54	0.50	0.01	0.04	-0.13	0.02	0.04	-0.68^***
8. Property rank: ordinary	0.38	0.49	-0.05	-0.05	0.09	0.09	0.09	-0.14	0.05
9. Property rank: medium	0.48	0.50	0.02	0.07	-0.03	-0.01	-0.08	0.14	-0.04	-0.48^***
10. Leader workaholism	4.50	0.98	-0.01	-0.21^*	0.05	-0.03	0.12	0.02	-0.09	-0.03	-0.02	0.79
11. Team job involvement	4.38	0.55	-0.11	-0.15	0.06	-0.09	-0.03	0.19	-0.21^*	-0.25^*	0.19	0.35^***	0.75
12. Team negative affect	3.65	0.97	-0.03	-0.06	0.10	0.17	-0.02	-0.01	-0.03	0.01	0.06	0.43^***	-0.06	0.90
13. Task significance	3.72	1.06	-0.14	-0.19	0.05	-0.02	-0.08	0.08	-0.04	-0.00	0.04	0.06	0.14	-0.03	0.85
14. Team performance	4.84	0.76	-0.08	-0.15	0.16	-0.08	0.05	-0.12	0.11	0.03	0.08	0.18	0.38^***	-0.19^*	-0.11	0.79

Model	Factor	χ²	df	χ²/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR for between	SRMR for within
Five-factor model	Each factor separately	715.84	225	3.18	0.92	0.91	0.07	0.06	0.05
Four-factor model 1	Leader workaholism combined with team performance	873.29	226	3.86	0.90	0.88	0.08	0.15	0.05
Four-factor model 2	Task significance combined with team job involvement	1799.71	227	7.93	0.74	0.71	0.12	0.06	0.13
Four-factor model 3	Task significance combined with team negative affect	1806.05	227	7.96	0.74	0.70	0.12	0.06	0.13
Four-factor model 4	Team job involvement combined with team negative affect	2808.07	227	12.37	0.58	0.52	0.15	0.06	0.18