Moderating role of transformational leadership in the relationship between work conflict and employee performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

Table 1. Characteristic of the respondents

Profile	Characteristic	Number	Percentage
Gender	Male	111	74
	Female	39	26
Age (Years Old)	21–30	13	8.7
	31–40	92	61.3
	41–50	42	28
	51<	3	2
Education (Degree)	High School	101	67.4
	Diploma	8	5.3
	Bachelor	41	27.3
Working experience	1–10 Years	13	8.7
	11–20 Years	92	61.3
	21–30 years	42	28
	31 Years <	3	32
Total		150	100

Table 2. Convergent validity and reliability analysis results (Continue to Table 3)

Item	ʎ	t	α	CR	AVE	VIF
Work Conflict (Jehn, 1995: Shah & Jehn, 1993):
Task Conflict (Jehn, 1995)			.884	0.885	.609	1.000
C.1: Conflict often occurred regarding idea in job	.822	23.442
C.2: Disagreement often occurred in job	.907	49.385
C.3: Conflicting opinions often appear in job	.868	39.860
C.4: Misunderstanding often occurred in job	.847	29.635
Relationship Conflict (Jehn, 1995)			.778	.858	.603	1.000
C.5: Relationship tensions often occurred in job	.689	13.772
C.6: Personal incompatibility often occurred	.801	18.340
C.7: Emotional responses often appeared (annoyance, fear, hate) in job	.856	37.739
C.8: Miscommunication occurred oftentimes	.751	18.609
Process Conflict (Shah & Jehn, 1993)			.785	.875	.700	1.000
C.9: Disagreement on who must do something at work often occurred	.857	34.975
C.10: Disagreement on responsibilities in completing certain tasks often occurred	.847	25.135
C.11: Disagreement on how to perform a job often occurred	.804	22.654
Transformational Leadership^b (Bass & Avolio, 1990)			.889	.915	.643	1.148
TL.1: My leader makes me enthusiastic about performing my tasks	.768	15.434
TL.3: My leader encourages his/her subordinate to share their ideas and opinions	.857	26.229
TL.5: My leader motivates his/her subordinates to consider old issues using new perspectives	.808	20.702
TL.6: My leader provides new means in solving tasks	.823	25.289
TL.8: My leader finds what his/her subordinate wanted and try to help them in achieving it	.739	13.862
TL.9: My leader provided awards when I worked well	.812	27.79

Note: ^B deleted items, Loading Factor (ʎ); Cronbach Alpha (α); Composite Reliability (CR); Average Extracted Variance (AVE); Variance Inflation Variance (VIF); t-value (t)

Table 3. Convergent validity and reliability analysis results (Second part of Table 2)

Measure and constructing items		t	α	CR	AVE	VIF
Employee Performance (Koopmans et al., 2013):
Task Performance (Koopmans et al., 2013)^b			.836	.885	.609	1.000
P.1: I always maintain a high-performance standard	.617	7.931
P.3: I am high spirited in working	.772	22.350
P.4: I could complete many tasks to achieve organizational objectives	.796	18.295
P.5: I always completed my tasks on times	.866	35.911
P.6: My colleagues believe that I am a high-performing employee	.827	31.936
Adaptive Performance (Koopmans et al., 2013)			.857	.895	.589	1.000
P.7: I always share my knowledge for an effective work	.847	29.899
P.8: I always manage changes in jobs well in any situation	.788	30.885
P.9: I always believe that mutual understanding can lead to feasible solutions	.816	30.279
P.10: As time goes by, I respond well to organizational changes	.576	9.452
P.11: I always believe that mutual understanding can lead to feasible solutions	.763	18.657
P.12: As time goes by, I respond well to organizational changes	.792	20.303
Contextual Performance (Koopmans et al.,2013)			.894	.915	.562	1.000
P.13: When someone asks or need it, I always help my colleagues	.759	14.940
P.15: When my colleagues are in problems, I always show sympathy for them	.825	32.230
P.16: I actively participate in work discussion and meeting	.819	34.494
P.17: I always praise my colleagues for their excellent job	.598	12.885
P.18: I always get high satisfaction in helping others in the organization	.729	20.253
P.19: I always share my opinion and idea	.830	27.761
P.20: I always maintain a good coordination	.737	27.409
P.22: I always communicate effectively with my colleagues to solve issues and make a decision	.740	20.621

Note: ^B deleted items, Loading Factor (ʎ); Cronbach Alpha (α); Composite Reliability (CR); Average Extracted Variance (AVE); Variance Inflation Variance (VIF); t-value (t)

Table 4. Discriminant validity using fornell-lacker criterion

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Transf. Leadership	4.02	.054	.802
Adapt. Perf.	4.17	.016	.655	.768
Contex. Perf.	4.14	.008	.733	.660	.750
Task Perf.	4.00	.018	.573	.709	.752	.780
Rel. conflict	2.31	.011	−.392	−.365	−.480	−.492	.777
Proc. conflict	2.14	.021	−.350	−.363	−.460	−.485	.761	.836
Task conflict	2.48	.011	−.252	−.308	−.418	−.503	.797	.700	.862

Table 5. Discriminant validity analysis using second-order factor

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6
Adapt. Perf.	.768
Context. Perf.	.660	.750
Task Perf.	.709	.752	.780
Relat. conflict	−.365	−.480	−.492	.777
Process conflict	−.363	−.460	−.485	.761	.836
Task conflict	−.308	−.418	−.503	.797	.700	.862

Table 6. Reliability analysis on second-order factors

Second-Order Factor	First-Order Factor	ʎ	AVE	α	CR
Work Conflict	Task conflict	.928	.569	.923	.935
	Relation conflict	.933
	Process conflict	.877
Work Perf.	Task Performance	.868	.500	.943	.952
	Adaptive performance	.925
	Context. performance	.956

Note: Loading Factor (ʎ); Cronbach Alpha (α); Composite Reliability (CR); Average Extracted Variance (AVE); Variance Inflation Variance (VIF); t-value (t)

Table 7. Main effect analysis result

Variable	Standardized coefficient	SD	t-value	p value
Work conflict	−.267	.053	5.169	.000
Transformational leadership	.626	.058	10.867	.000

Note: Dependent variable: Employee Performance

Table 8. Interaction effect test results

Variable	β	STDV	t	p	R^2	f^2
Work Conflict	−.209	.054	3.887	.000	25.20	.453
Trans. Leadership	.638	.056	11.638	.000	52.50	.138
Work Conflict × Trans.Leadership	−.220	.057	3.863	.000	64.50	.525

Note: Standard Coefficient (β); STTDV Standard Deviation (STDV); t-value (t); P-value (p); R² = .25 (weak); .50 (moderate); .75 (strong); f² = .02 (low); .15 (moderate); .35 (high)

Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shah, P., & Jehn, K. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884769

 Google Scholar

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 4, pp. 231–272). JAI Press.

 Google Scholar

Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C., Hildebrandt, V., Van Buuren, S., Van der Beek, A. J., & De Vet, H. C. (2013). Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International journal of productivity and performance management.

 Google Scholar