See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271508498

Understanding When Leader Negative Emotional Expression Enhances

Follower Performance: The Moderating Roles of Follower Personality Traits
and Perceived Leader Power

Article  in  Human Relations · September 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0018726714526626

CITATIONS READS

23 1,403

2 authors, including:

Nai-Wen Chi
National Sun Yat-sen University
55 PUBLICATIONS   1,723 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nai-Wen Chi on 29 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

526626
research-article2014
HUM0010.1177/0018726714526626Human RelationsChi and Ho

human relations

human relations
1­–22
Understanding when leader © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
negative emotional expression sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0018726714526626
enhances follower performance: hum.sagepub.com

The moderating roles of follower

personality traits and perceived
leader power

Nai-Wen Chi
National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan

Ta-Rui Ho
National Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan

Abstract
Emotional expression plays an important role in our social lives. This is especially true
for leaders, who hold greater power as compared to their followers. Based on the
Emotions as Social Information (EASI) model, we explore the effectiveness of leaders’
negative emotional expression on follower performance by examining the moderating
effects of follower conscientiousness, agreeableness, power distance orientation, and
perceived leader power. We collected data from 40 firms across various industry
types using a multisource, multiphase research design. The data are comprised of
191 leader−follower dyads, consisting of 86 leaders and 191 followers. The results
of the hierarchical regression analysis show that followers’ conscientiousness and
agreeableness positively moderate the relationship between leader negative emotional
expression and follower performance. However, when followers are low in power
distance orientation and perceived leader power, the relationship between leader
negative emotional expression and follower performance becomes negative. Theoretical
and practical implications of our findings are also discussed.

Corresponding author:
Nai-Wen Chi, Institution of Human Resource Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, 70, Lienhai Rd,
Kaohsiung 80424, Taiwan.
Emails: nwchi@mail.nsysu.edu.tw; iversonchi@gmail.com
2 Human Relations 

Keywords
agreeableness, conscientiousness, EASI model, perceived leader power, power
distance orientation, task performance

Introduction
In recent years, leadership research focused on understanding the key role of leader
emotional expression has increased significantly (Ashkanasy and Jordan, 2008;
Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010; Schaubroeck and Shao, 2012; Sy and Choi, 2013;
Visser et al., 2013). Leader emotional expression plays a critical role in leader−follower
interactions owing to the ways that leaders’ emotions influence how followers feel,
think, and act (Ashkanasy and Jordan, 2008; Eberly and Fong, 2013; Sy et al., 2005;
Thiel et al., 2012). Leaders reveal their emotions through facial, vocal, and other non-
verbal expressions to influence followers (Humphrey, 2002; Visser et al., 2013); as
such, the effects of leader emotional expression on follower behaviors and perfor-
mance have become an important issue in the leadership literature (Johnson, 2009;
Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010; Van Kleef et al., 2009).
Leaders may use positive or negative emotional expressions to influence followers
(Eberly and Fong, 2013; Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010; Van Kleef et al., 2010b). The
present study focuses on the effects of leader negative emotional expressions for two
reasons. First, previous studies have indicated that leader positive emotional expression
generally brings more favorable outcomes pertaining to enhanced: follower positive
moods (Chi et al., 2011; Sy and Choi, 2013; Sy et al., 2005); perceptions of leader effec-
tiveness (Bono and Ilies, 2006; Connelly and Ruark, 2010); and follower performance
(George, 1995; Visser et al., 2013). In comparison, research results on leader negative
emotional expression are inconsistent. Some researchers have indicated that leader nega-
tive emotional expression is negatively related to leader effectiveness (Connelly and
Ruark, 2010; Game, 2008; Glomb and Hulin, 1997; Lewis, 2000; Schaubroeck and Shao,
2012), whereas others found it to be positively related to followers’ levels of effort (Sy
et al., 2005), project progress (Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010), and performance (Visser
et al., 2013). Thus, whether leader negative emotional expression leads to positive fol-
lower outcomes needs further investigation. Second, because negative emotions are an
unavoidable part of organizational life and leaders might express negative emotions to
help control their followers (Humphrey et al., 2008; Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010), it is
important to clarify when leader negative emotional expression might enhance or reduce
follower performance (Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010; Miron-Spektor and Rafaeli, 2009;
Van Kleef et al., 2010a).
Recently, several scholars have found that follower individual factors (e.g., team epis-
temic motivation: Van Kleef et al., 2009; team agreeableness: Van Kleef et al., 2010b;
follower interdependence: Eberly and Fong, 2013) or social factors (e.g., task context:
Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010) can moderate the effects of leader negative emotional
expression. Although these studies have provided insightful implications regarding
leader negative emotional expression, several research questions remained unan-
swered. First, these studies have tested the moderating roles of individual or social
Chi and Ho 3

factors separately. As the effects of leader emotional displays depend on both follower
characteristics and the social context that the emotional displays occur within (Miron-
Spektor and Rafaeli, 2009), it is necessary to integrate the two types of moderators into
a coherent theoretical framework. Second, the relative power or status between the lead-
ers and followers influences how followers perceive and interpret leaders’ behaviors
(Ferguson et al., 2010; Ratcliff et al., 2012). Therefore, the role of power in the leader
negative emotional expression−follower performance relationship requires further inves-
tigation. Finally, recent studies that explored the effects of leader negative emotional
expression have mostly been conducted within an experimental setting (e.g., Eberly and
Fong, 2013; Visser et al., 2013) or a specific context (Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010),
employing student teams as samples (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2009; 2010a; 2010b).
However, the ways leaders interact with followers within an experimental setting might
be quite different from what occurs within actual organizations. It would be fruitful to
examine whether the effects of leader emotional expression can be generalized into
actual organizational settings.
The current study draws on the perspective of the emotional as social information
(EASI) model (Van Kleef, 2009) to further clarify the boundary conditions of the leader
negative emotional expression−follower performance relationship. The EASI model
provides theoretical explanations regarding how both individual factors and social fac-
tors influence observers’ (i.e., followers) processing and reactions to others’ (i.e., lead-
ers) emotional expressions. Based on the EASI model, we integrate both individual
moderators (i.e., follower conscientiousness and agreeableness) and social moderators
(i.e., perceived leader power and follower power distance orientation) into our theoreti-
cal framework.
This approach broadens the existing leadership literature in the following ways. First,
the EASI model suggests that the effects of emotional expression depend on the observ-
ers’ (i.e., followers’) motivation and ability to process the information and meanings
associated with these expressions (Van Kleef, 2009). Leaders can use negative emotions
to deliver negative performance feedback toward followers (Newcombe and Ashkanasy,
2002); therefore, we expect that the effects of leader negative emotional expressions on
follower performance will depend on follower performance-related and interpersonal
motivations/abilities. The researchers of Big Five personality trait have found that con-
scientiousness is the strongest predictor of job performance, and that it reflects individual
differences in goal-achievement motivation and impulse control ability (Barrick et al.,
2001; Costa and McCrae, 1992; Javaras et al., 2012). Moreover, agreeableness is the
strongest predictor of interpersonal cooperation (Volk et al., 2011), and captures indi-
viduals’ desire to maintain interpersonal harmony and ability to sympathize with others’
feelings (Barrick et al., 2001; Costa and McCrae, 1985). Therefore, follower conscien-
tiousness and agreeableness are included as additional individual moderators in the
leader negative emotional expression−follower performance relationship.
Second, the EASI model also proposes that the effects of emotional expressions
depend on the social context of the interpersonal interactions. Within the dyadic interac-
tions, the perceptions regarding power differences between leaders and followers (i.e.,
perceived leader power: Farmer and Aguinis, 2005), as well as followers’ tendency to
accept unequal distribution of power (i.e., power distance orientation: Farh et al., 2007),
4 Human Relations 

can influence the perceived appropriateness of leaders’ emotional expressions and the
subsequent behavioral responses of followers (Gibson and Callister, 2010; Ratcliff et al.,
2012). Therefore, we integrate these two power-related moderators and propose that they
interact jointly with leader negative emotional expressions in predicting follower perfor-
mance. Finally, to examine the generalizability of the effects of leader emotional expres-
sion, we test our theoretical model using an actual supervisor−subordinate sample, and
collect data from multiple sources and across multiple time periods. Figure 1 presents the
conceptual model of the proposed relationships.

Theory and hypotheses

Boundary conditions of the relationship between leader negative
emotional expressions and follower performance: The Emotions as Social
Information (EASI) model
Leader negative emotional expressions are observable displays of the leader’s negative
emotions; leaders may display negative emotions verbally or nonverbally when interact-
ing with their followers, which in turn can influence follower behaviors and performance
(Dasborough and Ashkanasy, 2002; Humphrey, 2002; Visser et al., 2013). Although sev-
eral studies have shown that leader negative emotional expressions reduce follower per-
formance as well as their perceptions of leader effectiveness (Connelly and Ruark, 2010;
Game, 2008; Johnson, 2009; Lewis, 2000), other scholars have argued that leader dis-
plays of negative emotions can be beneficial for follower performance under certain
conditions (Eberly and Fong, 2013; Lindebaum and Fielden, 2010; Visser et al., 2013).
This study seeks to improve our understanding of this relationship.
To answer the aforementioned research question, we employed Van Kleef’s (2009)
EASI model for two reasons. First, based on the social-functional perspective of emo-
tions (Frijda, 1986), the EASI model suggests that others’ (e.g., leaders’) emotional
expressions provide social information to observers (e.g., followers), which may influ-
ence observers’ behaviors in different ways. Specifically, the EASI model identifies two

Follower affective reactions: Negatively predicting follower performance

Follower information Social-relational

processing factors
Leader negative ǸPerceived leader Follower
ǸConscientiousness Power
emotional expression ǸPower distance performance
ǸAgreeableness
orientation

H1, H2 H3

Follower inferential processes: Positively predicting follower performance

Figure 1.  The EASI-based model of the present study.

Chi and Ho 5

differential processes through which emotional expression influences observers’ behav-

iors: the inferential process and the affective reactions process. The former refers to how
observers use others’ emotional expressions to infer information about feelings and atti-
tudes, which in turn impacts the observers’ behaviors. In the context of leader−follower
interactions, a leader’s negative emotional display can be regarded as a type of negative
feedback about follower performance. As such, when followers infer that their task pro-
gress is insufficient, they may attempt to improve their performance (Van Kleef et al.,
2009). The latter refers to a procedure through which others’ emotional expressions may
elicit affective reactions in observers. Such affective reactions might enhance follower
negative reactions and behavioral responses toward leaders (Van Kleef and Côté, 2007).
Second, the EASI model provides an overarching theoretical framework that inte-
grates individual and social factors in the leader negative emotional expression−follower
performance relationship. The EASI model theorizes that the effect of emotional expres-
sions depends on two additional factors (Van Kleef, 2009): observers’ information pro-
cessing and social-relational factors. The former notes that the effects of others’
emotional expressions on observers’ behaviors depend on the observers’ motivation and
ability to process the meaning of information in the expression. When observers have
stronger ability and motivation to process the information, the predictive power of the
inference process will be stronger. However, when observers’ motivation and ability to
process the information are both low, the predictive power of the affective reactions
increases. For the latter, because the nature of the social context or interpersonal interac-
tions (e.g., norms for the interactions; the preferred way of emotional expression) influ-
ences the perceived appropriateness of emotional expressions, these factors also moderate
the effect of emotional expressions on observers’ behaviors.
Based on the EASI model, we explore how leader negative emotional expressions
predict individual follower performance using an actual worker sample, and theorize
how follower information processing (i.e., conscientiousness and agreeableness) and
social-relational factors (i.e., perceived leader power and follower power distance orien-
tation) moderate such effects.

Moderating role of follower conscientiousness on the leader negative

emotional expression−follower performance relationship
Based on the EASI model, we propose that follower conscientiousness moderates the
relationship between leader negative emotional expression and follower performance
owing to differences in goal-achievement motivations and self-control skills (Barrick
et al., 2002; Rothbart and Sheese, 2007). For instance, leader expression of negative
emotions might be more effective for conscientious followers because they have stronger
desires to achieve goals and obey work rules (George and Zhou, 2001), as well as better
skills to regulate their emotions (Javaras et al., 2012), than do low-conscientiousness
followers.
Conscientiousness refers to individual differences in terms of goal achievement,
orderliness, and impulse control (Costa and McCrae, 1992; Javaras et al., 2012; Rothbart
and Sheese, 2007). Individuals with high conscientiousness tend to be hardworking,
6 Human Relations 

achievement-oriented, responsible, and persistent, resulting in stronger motivation to

achieve difficult goals and follow the rules (Barrick et al., 1993; George and Zhou,
2001). When confronted with leader expressions of negative emotions, conscientious
followers may perceive them as signals of insufficient task progress, and therefore
increase efforts to achieve the task goals, leading to improved task performance. In com-
parison, low-conscientiousness individuals are less responsible and less interested in
achievement, which reduces their goal-achievement motivations and intentions to obey
the rules (Barrick and Mount, 2000). As such, when leaders display negative emotions
toward low-conscientiousness followers, they are less likely to perceive such emotions
as negative job-related feedback and may even be motivated to disobey the rules, further
reducing their performance.
Moreover, high-conscientiousness individuals tend to be proficient at self-control and
emotional regulation (Costa and McCrae, 1992; George and Zhou, 2001; Javaras et al.,
2012), whereas low-conscientiousness people are more likely to be influenced by momen-
tary emotions (Ilies et al., 2006). For example, Jensen-Campbell et al. (2007) found that
low-conscientiousness individuals experience more negative emotions after frustrating
events than do high-conscientiousness individuals. Furthermore, Javaras et al. (2012)
indicated that high-conscientiousness individuals are more likely to recover from negative
stimuli and emotions than do low-conscientiousness ones. As such, low-conscientious-
ness followers are more likely to generate negative reactions when they feel targeted by
leaders’ negative emotions, which might further reduce their work motivations and ham-
per their performance. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Conscientiousness moderates the relationship between leader negative emotional

expressions and follower performance: this association is positive for conscientious followers,
but negative for less conscientious followers.

Moderating role of follower agreeableness on the leader negative

emotional expression−follower performance relationship
Based on the EASI model, we expect that leaders’ expressions of negative emotions will
be less harmful for agreeable followers owing to their preferences for avoiding argu-
ments and good interpersonal skills (Ashton and Lee, 2001; Barrick et al., 2002). There
are two reasons for this argument. First, individuals high on agreeableness tend to be
tolerant, forgiving, considerate, cooperative, and courteous (Barrick and Mount, 1991).
Agreeable people have stronger motivation to avoid arguments and maintain social har-
mony (Graziano and Eisenberg, 1997). In contrast, disagreeable individuals are argu-
mentative, antagonistic, and temperamental; they do not shy away from conflict
(Skarlicki et al., 1999). Therefore, when agreeable followers are the target of leaders’
negative emotional expression, they might perceive it as a threat to social harmony, and
thus exert greater efforts to modify their behaviors (e.g., improving performance) to
avoid potential conflicts (Graziano et al., 1996); however, disagreeable followers might
be more reactive to leaders’ negative emotions (Ilies et al., 2006) and in turn argue with
the leaders, further reducing their performance.
Chi and Ho 7

Second, agreeable individuals have better interpersonal skills to maintain social rela-
tionships: when conflicts arise, they are capable of communicating openly with others,
thereby facilitating conflict resolution. In addition, agreeable individuals tend to show
empathy and understand others’ concerns (Ashton and Lee, 2001), increasing the level of
mutual understanding regarding the causes of the conflict. In turn, agreeable followers
are able to communicate openly with angry leaders by listening to and understanding the
leaders’ concerns, and then taking steps (e.g., improving their performance) to resolve
the conflicts (Morgeson et al., 2005). However, disagreeable individuals tend to put their
own interests above those of others and engage in retaliatory behaviors when they per-
ceive unfair treatment (Skarlicki et al., 1999). As such, they are less likely to care about
angry leaders’ thoughts or clarify the meaning of leaders’ negative emotions. Moreover,
they might respond to leaders’ negative emotions in negative ways, such as engaging in
deviant behaviors or heightening the conflicts, which further decreases their perfor-
mance. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Agreeableness moderates the relationship between leader negative emotional

expressions and follower performance: this association is positive for agreeable followers, but
negative for disagreeable followers.

Moderating roles of follower perceived leader power and power distance

orientation on the leader negative emotional expression−follower
performance relationship
In addition to followers’ information processing, the EASI model suggests that social-
relational factors can also influence followers’ reactions to leaders’ negative emotional
expressions (Van Kleef, 2009). Power refers to the ability or potential to influence oth-
ers, which is an important social-relational factor in interpersonal interactions (Aguinis
et al., 1994). In leader−follower interactions, power influences followers’ perceived
appropriateness and responses to the leader’s negative behaviors (Aquino et al., 2006).
Therefore, we propose that two power-related variables, follower perceived leader power
(i.e., followers’ perceptions of leaders’ ability to use power; Farmer and Aguinis, 2005)
and follower power distance orientation (i.e., individual tendency to accept unequal
power distribution; Kirkman et al., 2009), jointly influence the effects of leader negative
emotional expressions on follower performance.
This three-way interactive effect can be further explained by the resource dependency
perspective (Emerson, 1962). Emerson (1962) suggested that the power to influence or
control others resides in control over the resources that others value and need (i.e.,
resource dependency). An individual with the ability to reward/punish others, or control
over the valuable resources that others need, will be regarded as powerful, which will in
turn affect how others react to powerful individual’s behaviors. In addition, people differ
in their needs, preferences and goals: such differences can influence the effects of per-
ceived power on people’s behavioral responses (Farmer and Aguinis, 2005).
Similarly, the resource dependency perspective states that when high-power leaders
express negative emotions towards followers, the latter often find it advantageous to
8 Human Relations 

maintain a good relationship with the former, because the leaders control access to val-
ued resources (Aquino et al., 2006). This is particularly true for high power distance
orientation followers, because they accept and expect inequalities between powerful and
less powerful people (Farh et al., 2007). Therefore, when high power distance orienta-
tion followers perceive their leaders as powerful, they are more likely to tolerate the
leader’s expressed negative emotions and be motivated to gain favorable performance
appraisals from the leaders in the hope of retaining access to valued resources.
Conversely, when leaders do not control access to needed resources, followers tend to
perceive them as less powerful, and be less likely to tolerate leader negative emotions
(Aquino et al., 2006). This is particularly true for low power distance orientation follow-
ers, because they are less likely to accept unequal power distributions in their organiza-
tions (Farh et al., 2007), and may react negatively to low-power leaders’ negative
emotional displays. As a result, when followers perceive the leader as less powerful and
are low in power distance orientation, they are more likely to perceive leader’s negative
emotional expression as inappropriate, reducing their intention to improve their perfor-
mance. Based on the above, the following is proposed:

Hypothesis 3: Follower perceived leader power and power distance orientation jointly moderate
the relationship between leader negative emotional expression and follower performance: when
follower perceived leader power is high, leader negative emotional expression predicts high
levels of job performance for high power distance orientation followers. However, when
follower perceived leader power is low, leader negative emotional expression is associated with
low levels of job performance for low power distance orientation followers.

Methods
Sample and procedures
In order to test the proposed relationships, matched questionnaires were distributed to
100 leaders (supervisors) and 243 followers (subordinates) from 40 companies in Taiwan.
In order to avoid contextual influences from any particular organization and to enhance
the generalizability of our findings across different industries, the sampled companies
were chosen from multiple industries,1 including banking (17%), retail (15%), high-tech-
nology (14%), traditional manufacturing (13%), service (10%), transportation (6%), and
others (25%). Invitations were sent to 50 human resource professionals who participated
in MBA courses in a midsize university in southern Taiwan. In total, 40 human resource
professionals from 40 different companies agreed to serve as the designated coordinator
for their company.
The data collection procedure included the following steps. We obtained permission
from the management of all companies involved, and then informed the designated coor-
dinators of the data collection procedures. The questionnaires were delivered to these
coordinators, and then distributed with coded numbers (to match leaders and followers) to
the leaders and followers. In order to avoid issues of common method variance (Podsakoff
et al., 2012), we collected the data from multiple sources and at multiple time points. First,
coordinators distributed the follower questionnaires to subordinates at time 1. Followers
Chi and Ho 9

(subordinates) were asked to rate their personality traits, power distance orientation, per-
ceived leader power, and the leader’s (supervisor) negative emotional expressions. To
increase respondent motivation and ability to provide accurate responses (Podsakoff et al.,
2012), we explained how the information would be used and why participating in the
research would be beneficial for them (e.g., providing responses would help clarify the
complex interactions between leaders and followers and offer useful suggestions for lead-
ers) in the questionnaire cover letter. Two weeks later (time 2), the coordinators distrib-
uted the leader questionnaires to the supervisors of each subordinate to rate follower
performance. Finally, in order to reduce respondent motivation to provide socially desir-
able responses (Podsakoff et al., 2012), we noted on the questionnaire cover letter that
there are no right or wrong answers, and that all opinions would be valued. Moreover, to
ensure anonymity, all surveys were returned to the researchers directly via mail. Overall,
we received successfully matched questionnaires from 191 leader−follower dyads (includ-
ing 86 supervisors and 191 corresponding subordinates). Followers were mostly female
(63%) and ranged from 20 to 62 years old (M = 33.13; SD = 7.91). They had been
employed at their current company for an average of 5.51 years (SD = 5.82) and their
tenure with the current supervisor was 2.51 years (SD = 2.80). The leaders were mostly
male (58%) and ranged from 25 to 67 years old (M = 42.11; SD = 8.54).

Measures
Following Brislin (1980), we performed the standard translation and back-translation
procedures to ensure an appropriate cross-cultural translation. First, the original (English)
versions of the questionnaires were translated into Chinese by two bilingual experts.
Then, three professional Chinese−English experts were recruited to translate the Chinese
questionnaires back into English. Finally, another three organizational-behavior research-
ers compared the original and back-translated English questionnaires to review the
appropriateness of the translations and gave feedback on those items they thought were
translated inappropriately. This process was repeated until a consensus on translated
questionnaires was achieved.
Leader negative emotional expression We measured leader negative emotional expres-
sion using Forgays et al.’s (1997) scale, including five adjectives to describe leaders’
displayed negative emotions (i.e., angry, furious, irritated, mad, and burned up).
Followers were asked to evaluate the extent to which the leader had displayed these emo-
tions toward them during the past two weeks2 on 5-point Likert scales (1 = very slightly
or not at all to 5 = extremely). The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .94.
Follower performance Follower performance was assessed using five items from Williams
and Anderson’s (1991) scale (e.g., adequately completes assigned duties; fulfills respon-
sibilities specified in job description), and four items from Wayne and Liden’s (1995)
scale (e.g., performs his or her job the way you would like it to be performed). We dropped
two reverse-coded items from Williams and Anderson’s original seven-item scale because
these two items reduced the overall reliability of the measure. In addition, we dropped
three items from Wayne and Liden’s original seven-item scale because they were not
10 Human Relations 

strongly related to follower in-role performance (i.e., if you entirely had your way, to what
extent would you change the manner in which your subordinate is doing his/her job; what
is your personal view of your subordinate in terms of his or her overall effectiveness; this
subordinate is superior to other new subordinates that I’ve supervised before). Leaders
were asked to evaluate follower performance during the past month. Responses were
made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
We also performed an exploratory factor analysis and reliability analysis to examine
the convergent validity and internal consistency of the combined nine-item measure. The
results of the principal-axis factor analysis with promax rotation revealed the nine items
loaded on single factor, explaining 71 percent of the variance in these items. Moreover,
the reliability analysis showed that the nine items had good inter-item correlations (r =
.77~ .86) and an acceptable Cronbach alpha of .94. Finally, we conducted regression
analyses using the performance scores from Wayne and Liden’s (1995) four items and
Williams and Anderson’s (1991) five items as separate dependent variables. The results
showed that the hypothesized two-way and three-way interactions remained significant.
Follower conscientiousness and agreeableness Followers’ personality traits were meas-
ured using Goldberg’s (1999) International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), including 10
items for conscientiousness (e.g., “I pay attention to details”) and 10 items for agreeable-
ness (e.g., “I take time out for others”). Followers evaluated how accurately these
descriptions describe them on 5-point Likert scales (1 = very inaccurate to 5 = very
accurate). The Cronbach alphas for conscientiousness and agreeableness were .73 and
.75, respectively.
Follower power distance orientation and perceived leader power Individual power dis-
tance orientation was measured using four items from Earley and Erez’s (1997) scale
(e.g., “Employees should not express disagreements with their managers”). Followers
were asked to evaluate if they agreed with these statements on 7-point Likert scales (1 =
strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha was .70 for this scale.
In terms of the perceived leader power, we used three items from Nesler et al. (1999)
to measure the leaders’ ability to influence and control valuable resources [e.g., “My
supervisor can provide me with valuable resources (e.g., pay level, reward, promotion)”].
Responses were made on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .80.
Control variables We added several control variables to rule out alternative explanations of
the proposed model. First, because gender can influence the ways leaders express their
emotions (Lewis, 2000) and the ways followers interpret the emotions (Tsai, 2001), both
leader gender and follower gender are controlled in the analyses. Second, because the rela-
tive status of followers as well as follower performance may depend on their tenure (Aquino
and Bradfield, 2000; Wang et al., 2011), follower tenure is controlled in the analyses. Third,
follower tenure with the leader is controlled because it can influence interpersonal interac-
tions between leader and their followers (Mitchell and Ambrose, 2007).
Fourth, follower liking toward the leader can affect follower reactions and percep-
tions toward the leader’s negative emotions. Thus, we developed one item to measure
this construct (i.e., “I like my supervisor very much”), which followers completed using
Chi and Ho 11

a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Finally, because indi-
viduals with high neuroticism are more likely to interpret social information in negative
ways and are sensitive to negative events in the workplace (Chi et al., 2013), it is plausi-
ble that followers’ neuroticism might influence their emotional reactions towards the
leaders’ negative emotions (Aquino et al., 2006). As such, we also included Goldberg’s
(1999) IPIP 10-item scale to measure neuroticism and controlled for neuroticism. The
Cronbach alpha for neuroticism was .88.

Data analysis
We conducted hierarchical regression analyses to test our hypotheses. In order to reduce
problems associated with multi-collinearity, all variables used to construct the interac-
tion terms were standardized (Cohen et al., 2003). We also checked the variance inflation
factor (VIF) scores of the regression models to ensure that all were below 10.0.

Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables.
Although follower conscientiousness was positively related to performance (r = .20, p <
.01), leader negative emotional expression was unrelated to performance (r = −.12, n.s.).

Confirmatory factor analyses

To investigate the validity of the study variables, we conducted confirmatory factor anal-
yses (CFA) using LISREL 8.54 with maximum likelihood estimations, and examined the
fit indices of the hypothesized 6-factor model (i.e., leader negative emotional expression,
follower conscientiousness and agreeableness, power distance orientation, perceived
leader power, and follower performance). The CFA results show that the hypothesized
6-factor model provided an adequate fit to the data (χ2 [764] = 1545.6, p < .01; CFI = .90,
NNFI = .90, IFI = .91, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .07).

Hypothesis testing
The hierarchical regression analysis results are presented in Table 2. As shown in Model
3 of Table 2, follower conscientiousness and agreeableness positively moderated the rela-
tionship between leader negative emotional expressions and follower performance (β =
.21 and .17, all ps < .05). In order to clarify the forms of moderation, we followed Aiken
and West’s (1991) approach to plot the leader negative emotional expression−follower
performance relationship under high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the
mean) levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness (see Figures 2 and 3).
Figure 2 depicts that leader negative emotional expression positively predicted fol-
lower performance (β = .23, p < .05) for high-conscientiousness followers. However,
this relationship became negative for low-conscientiousness followers (β = −.40, p <
.01). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Further, Figure 3 reveals that leader negative
emotional expression was negatively related to follower performance when followers
 12

Table 1.  Descriptives and bivariate correlations among study variablesa.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
  1 Leader gender 1.42 .49 —  
  2 Follower gender 1.63 .49 .23** —  
  3 Follower tenureb 66.14 69.87 .06 .13 —  
  4 Follower tenure with the leaderb 30.16 33.60 −.11 .14 .47** —  
  5 Follower liking toward the leader 3.51 .96 .03 .05 −.16* −.01 —  
  6 Follower neuroticism 3.16 .76 −.01 −.15* −.01 .07 .16* (.88)  
  7 Leader negative emotional expression 1.41 .70 .10 −.13 −.05 −.01 −.24** −.22** (.94)  
  8 Follower conscientiousness 3.73 .55 −.07 −.07 .10 .24** .10 .38** −.03 (.73)  
  9 Follower agreeableness 3.90 .49 .11 .02 −.03 −.00 .29** .34** −.14 .48** (.75)  
10 Follower power distance orientation 3.10 .98 −.06 −.04 −.02 .08 .09 −.01 .13 .05 −.06 (.70)  
11 Follower perceived leader power 4.59 1.06 −.06 .06 −.18* .05 .25** .02 −.10 −.00 .00 .16* (.80)  
12 Follower performance 3.86 .68 −.04 .07 .10 .21** .05 .12 −.12 .20** .11 .03 .05 (.94)
aCronbach’s alpha coefficients are presented in boldface on the diagonal. * p < .05, ** p < .01 (two-tailed). N = 191.
bIn months.
Human Relations 
Chi and Ho 13

Table 2.  Results of hierarchical regression analyses.

Variables Follower performance

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Control variables
  Leader gender .06 .05 .01 .04
  Follower gender −.03 −.01 .00 −.01
  Follower tenure .02 .01 .05 .06
  Tenure with the leader .18* .16 .14 .13
  Follower liking toward the leader .03 −.01 .00 −.01
  Follower neuroticism .11 .04 .01 .05
Main effects
  Leader negative emotional expressions (LNE) −.10 −.12 −.07
  Follower conscientiousness .13 .18* .18*
  Follower agreeableness .03 .04 .03
  Follower power distance orientation (PDO) .03 .04 .01
  Follower perceived leader power (PLP) .02 −.02 .00
Two-way interaction
LNE*Follower conscientiousness .21* .25**
  LNE*Follower agreeableness .17* .15
 LNE*PDO −.01 .01
 LNE*PLP −.08 −.07
 PDO*PLP −.06 −.04
Three-way interaction
 LNE*PDO*PLP −.19*
Total R² .06 .09 .16** .19**
∆R2 .06* .03* .07** .03*

* p < .05; **p < .01 (two-tailed); N = 191.

The standardized regression coefficients (β) are shown in each equation.

4.2
Follower performance

High
conscientiousness
3.7 Low
conscientiousness

3.2
-1 SD +1 SD
Leader negative emotional expression

Figure 2.  The moderating effect of follower conscientiousness on the leader negative
emotional expression−follower performance relationship.
14 Human Relations 

4.2

Follower performance

High
agreeableness
3.7 Low
agreeableness

3.2
-1 SD +1 SD
Leader negative emotional expression

Figure 3.  The moderating effect of follower agreeableness on the leader negative emotional
expression−follower performance relationship.

4.2
Follower performance

High PDO, High

PLP
Low PDO, Low
3.7 PLP
High PDO, Low
PLP
Low PDO, High
PLP

3.2
-1 SD +1 SD
Leader negative emotional expression

Figure 4.  The three-way interactive effect between follower PDO, follower PLP, and leader
negative emotional expression on follower performance.
Note: PDO = Power distance orientation; PLP = Perceived leader power.

were less agreeable (β = −.24, p < .05), whereas this relationship was positive for agree-
able followers (β = .16, p < .10). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 also received support.
Finally, as shown in Model 4, the coefficient of the interaction term among power
distance orientation, perceived leader power, and leader negative emotional expression
was significantly and negatively related to follower performance (β = −.19, p < .05).
Moreover, the incremental variance explained by the three-way interaction term was
significant (ΔR2 = .03, p < .05). Following Aiken and West (1991), we clarified the
nature of the three-way interaction (see Figure 4). In accordance with our expectations,
when follower perceived leader power is low, leader negative emotional expression pre-
dicts low levels of job performance for low power distance orientation followers.
Chi and Ho 15

However, contrary to our prediction, for followers with high perceived leader power and
high power distance orientation, leader negative emotional expression was negatively
related to follower performance. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported.

Post hoc analysis

We performed a post hoc analysis to clarify why Hypothesis 3 received partial support. It
is plausible that followers with high power distance orientation and perceived leader power
devote additional inner resources to regulating their emotions when facing leader negative
emotional expressions, leading to high levels of emotional exhaustion that in turn harm
their performance (Wright and Cropanzano, 1998). As such, we specified follower emo-
tional exhaustion (collected at time 1) as the dependent variable and re-ran the hierarchical
regression analysis. The results show that the three-way interaction term negatively pre-
dicted emotional exhaustion (β = −.16, p < .10); moreover, leader negative emotional
expression resulted in the highest levels of follower emotional exhaustion among all condi-
tions when follower power distance orientation and perceived leader power were both
high. Furthermore, follower emotional exhaustion also negatively predicted follower per-
formance at time 2 (β = −.11, p < .10), providing further support for these explanations.

Discussion
The present study contributes to the leadership literature by clarifying additional mod-
erators of the leader negative emotional expressions−follower performance relationship.
Both theoretical and practical implications are outlined below.

Theoretical implications
Drawing on the theoretical perspective of the EASI model, the present study found that
the effects of leader negative emotional expressions on follower performance depend on
both followers’ individual factors as well as the social context they interact within. For
the individual factors, the results show that high-conscientiousness followers achieve
higher performance when leaders display negative emotions toward them. This could be
owing to the fact that conscientious followers are goal-achievement oriented and self-
controlled (Javaras et al., 2012; Rothbart and Sheese, 2007): when leaders express nega-
tive emotions toward them, these followers may attribute such negative information to a
performance deficiency, such that they become motivated to improve their performance.
However, low-conscientiousness followers have lower motivation to achieve difficult
goals and are less likely to recover from negative events than are conscientious followers
(Jensen-Campbell et al., 2007). As such, they tend to react negatively to leaders’ negative
emotions, reducing their impetus to improve performance.
In addition, the results show that leader negative emotional expression is more effec-
tive with regard to the performance of agreeable followers than to that of disagreeable
ones. When facing leaders’ negative emotions, it is plausible that agreeable followers use
“performance improvement” as a means to reduce arguments and maintain good rela-
tionships with the leader. In contrast, disagreeable followers tend to be argumentative
16 Human Relations 

and temperamental, and in turn more likely to react to leader negative emotional expres-
sion by engaging in negative performance behaviors (Skarlicki et al., 1999).
However, Van Kleef et al. (2010b) have found that leader negative emotional expres-
sion negatively predicts team performance when team-level agreeableness is high, which
contradicts our findings at the dyadic level. There are two possible explanations for these
differences. First, agreeable team members may perceive a negative and emotional leader
as destroying the norms and harmony within the team, thereby reducing their intention to
pursue better team outcomes. However, in a dyadic interaction, an agreeable follower
has to face and cope with a leader’s negative emotions directly; as such, the agreeable
follower might try to improve his/her performance to resolve potential conflicts. Second,
Van Kleef et al. (2010b) conducted their study in an experimental setting using a student
sample, and manipulated leaders’ displayed emotions via computer software; in contrast,
the data of the present study were obtained in a field setting using a real leader−follower
sample. The interactions and power distributions between leaders and followers in
organizations might be quite different from those noted in experimental settings, which
in turn may have led to the different follower reactions.
In terms of the role of social factors, although Lindebaum and Fielden (2010) have
explored how task context influences the effects of leader negative emotional expression,
we extended their work by further testing the role of power in the leader negative emo-
tional expression−follower performance relationship. Given that leaders can use emo-
tional expression to exercise their power (Tiedens, 2001), it is somewhat surprisingly
that no known studies have integrated the power perspective into the leader negative
emotional expression literature. The current study shows that when follower perceived
leader power is low, leaders who express negative emotions toward followers predict low
levels of follower performance for low power distance orientation followers. This find-
ing is consistent with the perspective of the resource dependency theory (Emerson,
1962). Because the expression of negative emotions can be perceived as a way of exer-
cising power (Tiedens, 2001), followers may form negative perceptions toward “power-
less” leaders’ negative emotional expressions, especially those followers who are
unwilling to accept unequal power distribution.
Surprisingly, the results show that when followers perceive their leaders as powerful,
power distance orientation negatively moderates the relationship between leader nega-
tive emotional expression and follower performance. Based on the findings from the
post-hoc analysis, it is plausible that followers exhaust their emotional resources coping
with leaders’ expressions of negative emotions when they work under powerful leaders,
which in turn reduces their inner resources to achieve high performance. This finding
also provides some support to the affective reactions process of the EASI model (Van
Kleef, 2009): followers with high power distance orientation might not be able to process
the information and meaning associated with negative emotional expressions from high-
power leaders, which in turn activates their negative reactions (i.e., emotional exhaus-
tion). To expand on the current findings, future researchers can include follower affective
reactions (e.g., negative emotions) as potential mechanisms to explain the joint effects of
power and leader negative emotional expression on follower performance.
The present findings also highlight the important role of power in the social context
that leaders and followers interact within. According to Johns (2006), a salient social
context has several characteristics: (i) it shapes the meaning of phenomena that occur
Chi and Ho 17

under certain situations; and (ii) it has a direct social influence on individuals’ attitudes
and behaviors. As leaders’ power and followers’ power distance orientation jointly influ-
ence followers’ perceived appropriateness/meaning of leaders’ emotions, as well as the
behavioral responses to such emotions, we believe that power plays an important social
contextual role within the leader−follower interactions and should be incorporated into
the leader negative emotional expression−follower performance relationship.

Practical implications
The present findings offer several implications for organizations or leaders to manage fol-
lower performance. First, our findings suggest that leader negative emotional expression is
positively related to the performance of conscientious and agreeable followers. When these
kinds of followers do not perform well on their tasks, leaders could display moderate levels
of negative emotions during performance feedback sessions, as conscientious and agreea-
ble followers are able to process such negative social information and take actions to
address the cause of such information. However, it should be noted that we are not contend-
ing that “expressing negative emotions” is always a good choice for leaders; rather, we
suggest that this might lead to higher performance for certain types of followers.
Second, the present findings also indicate that leaders’ negative emotional expression
negatively predicts follower performance when followers’ power distance orientation
and perceived leader power are both high or both low. When leaders are relatively pow-
erless (e.g., low-level managers or inexperienced leaders) and followers are low in power
distance orientation, leaders should not use displays of negative emotions to exert their
power, because followers are unwilling to accept the unequal power distribution. In con-
trast, high power distance orientation followers tend to fear the consequences of conflict
with high-power individuals within organizations (Hofstede, 1997), so leaders with high
power (e.g., high-level managers or experienced leaders) should not frequently display
negative emotions toward this group because it is likely to be particularly stressful for
them. Finally, organizations should teach leaders how to manage their emotions and
“constructively” use negative emotional expressions (George, 2000). For example, lead-
ers should be sensitive to their own emotions and the emotional states of followers. Thus,
leaders can display appropriate emotions when providing negative performance feed-
back to followers (Newcombe and Ashkanasy, 2002).

Limitations and future research

Some limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First, the causal infer-
ence of the current findings might be limited owing to the correlational research design.
In order to enhance the present findings, future researchers can construct a well-designed
experiment to manipulate leader negative emotions (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2010b) or
schedule in-depth interviews with both leaders and followers to clarify the dynamic
interactions between the two parties. Second, it should be noted that the variance of
leader negative emotional expression was relatively limited (i.e., M = 1.41; SD = .70),
indicating that most leaders only expressed low to moderate levels of negative emotions
over the two-week time frame. Although the range of our independent variables was
restricted, we still obtained the expected results.
18 Human Relations 

Finally, the present study was conducted within a collectivist cultural context (i.e.,
Taiwan), which encourages behaviors and reactions that follow social norms and main-
tain interpersonal harmony (Hofstede, 1997). As such, followers with high agreeableness
or power distance orientation are likely to try harder to avoid conflicts and maintain
harmony with their leaders by modifying their behaviors. The generalizability of the
present findings to other cultural contexts (e.g., individualistic cultures) is therefore
questionable. However, Kirkman et al. (2009) found that the relationship between indi-
vidual power distance orientation on employee justice perceptions and performance
behaviors did not differ across individualistic and collectivist cultures. Moreover, using
a sample from the United States, Skarlicki et al. (1999) found that disagreeable employ-
ees are more likely to engage in retaliatory behaviors when they were treated unfairly.
These results suggest that the proposed moderating effects might be generalizable to
more individualistic cultures; future researchers can confirm this by testing the proposed
model in different cultural contexts.
To further expand on the current findings, future researchers can also explore poten-
tial boundary conditions of our model: one possible moderator is the cultural context.
Taiwan is a relatively high power distance culture (Hofstede, 1997), where less powerful
members of organizations tend to expect and accept power inequalities. Within such a
context, the consequences of exercising power might be stronger than in other cultural
contexts. Future researchers should re-examine the effects of leader negative emotional
expressions and the roles of leader power within low power distance orientation contexts
(e.g., Denmark, Norway, or Finland: Hofstede, 1997).
Future researchers can also explore whether different motivations (e.g., achievement
and communication motivations: Barrick et al., 2002) explain how conscientious and
agreeable followers react to leaders’ negative emotional expression. In addition, we
explored the social-relational factors at the dyadic level; it would be fruitful for future
researchers to examine such factors at the organization level (e.g., organizational climate
or culture). Finally, we only measured follower perceptions of leader negative emotional
expressions; we were unable to collect data on negative emotional expressions from the
leaders and merge this with follower’s responses. It would be beneficial to explore
whether the effects of leader-rated negative emotional expressions are consistent with
the findings obtained from followers’ perceptions.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
1 We performed several analyses of variances (ANOVA) to see if the ratings of major variables
vary across different industries. The results showed that the ratings regarding leader nega-
tive emotional expressions (F = .43, p >.10), follower conscientiousness (F = 1.09, p >.10),
agreeableness (F = .86, p >.10), power distance orientation (F = 1.10, p >.10), perceived
power (F = 1.05, p >.10), and follower performance (F = .46, p >.10) did significantly differ
across different industries. Therefore, collecting data from various industries should not influ-
ence our major findings adversely.
Chi and Ho 19

2 Because it is unlikely that a leader displays negative emotions toward followers on a daily
basis, we used a longer time-frame to capture the effects of leader negative emotional expres-
sions. In addition, as leader negative emotional expression is often a strong negative affective
event for followers (Mignonac and Herrbach, 2004), followers would be likely to recall such
events if they had occurred during the previous two weeks.

References
Aguinis H, Nesler MS, Quigley BM and Tedeschi JT (1994) Perceptions of power: A cognitive
perspective. Social Behavior and Personality 22: 377–384.
Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Aquino K and Bradfield M (2000) Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situ-
ational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science 11: 525–537.
Aquino K, Tripp TM and Bies RJ (2006) Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice,
and types of offenses as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 653–668.
Ashkanasy NM and Jordan PJ (2008) A multi-level view of leadership and emotion. In: Humphrey
RH (ed.) Affect and Emotion: New Directions in Management Theory and Research.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 17–39.
Ashton MC and Lee K (2001) A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality.
European Journal of Personality 15: 327–353.
Barrick MR and Mount MK (1991) The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44: 1–26
Barrick MR and Mount MK (2000) Select on conscientiousness and emotional stability. In: Locke
EA (ed.) Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 15–
28.
Barrick MR, Mount MK and Strauss JP (1993) Conscientiousness and performance of sales rep-
resentatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology 78:
715–722.
Barrick MR, Mount MK and Judge TA (2001) Personality and performance at the beginning of
the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of
Selection and Assessment 9: 9–30.
Barrick MR, Stewart GL and Piotrowski M (2002) Personality and job performance: Test of the
mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology
87: 43–51.
Bono JE and Ilies R (2006) Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. The Leadership
Quarterly 17: 317–334.
Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triadis HC
and Berry JW (eds) Handbook of Cross-culture Psychology, Vol. 2. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
394–444.
Chi NW, Chung YY and Tsai WC (2011) How do happy leaders enhance team success? The medi-
ating roles of transformational leadership, group affective tone and team processes. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology 41: 1421–1454.
Chi NW, Tsai WC and Tseng SM (2013) Customer negative events and employee service sabo-
tage: The mediating role of employee hostility and the moderating roles of personality and
group affective tone. Work & Stress 27: 298–319.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG and Aiken LS (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/correlation
Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd edn). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
20 Human Relations 

Connelly S and Ruark G (2010) Leadership style and activating potential moderators of the rela-
tionships among leader emotional displays and outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 21:
745–764.
Costa PT Jr and McCrae RR (1985) The NEO Personality Inventory: Manual Form S and Form R.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa PT, Jr and McCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory and New Five-Factor
Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dasborough MT and Ashkanasy NM (2002) Emotion and attribution of intentionality in leader-
member relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 615–634.
Earley PC and Erez M (1997) The Transplanted Executive: Why You Need to Understand How
Workers in Other Countries See the World Differently. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eberly MB and Fong CT (2013) Leading via the heart and mind: The roles of leader and follower
emotions, attributions and interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly 24(5): 696–711.
Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27: 31–41.
Farh J-L, Hackett RD and Liang J (2007) Individual-level cultural values as moderators of per-
ceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the
effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal 50: 715–729.
Farmer SM and Aguinis H (2005) Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: An
identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1069–1083.
Ferguson AJ, Ormiston ME and Moon H (2010) From approach to inhibition: The influence of
power on responses to poor-performers. Journal of Applied Psychology 95: 305–320.
Forgays DG, Forgays DK and Spielberger CD (1997) Factor structure of the state-trait anger
expression inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 69: 497–507.
Frijda NH (1986) The Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Game AM (2008) Negative emotions in supervisory relationships: The role of relational models.
Human Relations 61: 355–393.
George JM (1995) Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25: 778–794.
George JM (2000) Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human Relations
53: 1027–1055.
George JM and Zhou J (2001) When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology
86: 513–524.
Gibson DE and Callister RR (2010) Anger in organizations: Review and integration. Journal of
Management 36: 66–93.
Glomb TM and Hulin CL (1997) Anger and gender effects in observed supervisor-subordinate
dyadic interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 72: 281–307.
Goldberg LR (1999) A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the
lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In: Mervielde I, Deary I, De Fruyt F and
Ostendorf F (eds) Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7. Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg
University Press, 7–28.
Graziano WG and Eisenberg N (1997) Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In: Hogan
R, Briggs S and Johnson J (1997) Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Graziano WG, Jensen-Campbell LA and Hair EC (1996) Perceiving interpersonal conflict and
reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:
820–835.
Hofstede G (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Humphrey RH (2002) The many faces of emotional leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 13:
493–504.
Chi and Ho 21

Humphrey RH, Pollack JM and Hawver T (2008) Leading with emotional labor. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 23: 151–168.
Ilies R, Scott BA and Judge TA (2006) The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced
states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal
49: 561–575.
Javaras KN, Schaefer SM, van Reekum CM et al. (2012). Conscientiousness predicts greater
recovery from negative emotion. Emotion 12: 875–881.
Jensen-Campbell LA, Knack JM, Waldrip AM and Campbell SD (2007) Do personality traits
associated with self-control influence the regulation of anger and aggression? Journal of
Research in Personality 41: 403–424.
Johnson SK (2009) Do you feel what I feel? Mood contagion and leadership outcomes. The
Leadership Quarterly 20: 814–827.
Kirkman BL, Chen G, Farh J-L, Chen ZX and Lowe KB (2009) Individual power distance orienta-
tion and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examina-
tion. Academy of Management Journal 52: 744–764.
Lewis KM (2000) When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative emotional
expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21: 221–234.
Lindebaum D and Fielden S (2010) ‘It’s good to be angry’: Enacting anger in construction project
management to achieve perceived leader effectiveness. Human Relations 64: 437–458.
Mignonac K and Herrbach O (2004) Linking work events, affective states and attitudes: An empir-
ical study of managers’ emotions. Journal of Business and Psychology 19: 221–240.
Miron-Spektor E and Rafaeli A (2009) The effects of anger in the workplace: When, where and
why observing anger enhances or hinders performance. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management 28: 153–178.
Mitchell MS and Ambrose ML (2007) Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the mod-
erating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1159–1168.
Morgeson FP, Reider MH and Campion MA (2005) Selecting individuals in team settings: The
importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel
Psychology 58: 583–611.
Nesler MS, Aguinis H, Quigley BM, Lee SJ and Tedeschi JT (1999) The development and valida-
tion of a scale measuring global social power based on French and Raven’s power taxonomy.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 29: 750–771.
Newcombe MJ and Ashkanasy NM (2002) The role of affect and affective congruence in percep-
tions of leaders: An experimental study. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 601–614.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63: 539–569.
Ratcliff NJ, Franklin RG Jr, Nelson AJ and Vescio TK (2012) The scorn of status: Anger on high-
status faces is a stronger signal of social threat. Social Cognition 30: 631–642.
Rothbart M and Sheese B (2007) Temperament and emotion regulation. In: Gross J (ed.) Handbook
of Emotion Regulation. New York, NY US: Guilford Press, 331–350.
Schaubroeck J and Shao T (2012) The role of attribution in how followers respond to the emotional
expression of male and female leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 23: 27–42.
Skarlicki DP, Folger R and Tesluk P (1999) Personality as a moderator in the relationship between
fairness and retaliation. Academy of Management Journal 42: 100–108.
Sy T and Choi JN (2013) Contagious leaders and followers: Exploring multi-stage mood contagion
in a leader activation and member propagation (LAMP) model. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes 122: 127–140.
Sy T, Côté S and Saavedra S (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: 295–305.
22 Human Relations 

Thiel CE, Connelly S and Griffith JA (2012) Leadership and emotion management for complex
tasks: Different emotions, different strategies. The Leadership Quarterly 23: 517–533.
Tiedens LZ (2001) Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: The effect of negative
emotion expressions on social status conferral. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
80: 86–94.
Tsai W-C (2001) Determinants and consequences of employee displayed positive emotions.
Journal of Management 27: 497–512.
Van Kleef GA (2009) How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information
(EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18: 184–188.
Van Kleef GA and Côté S (2007) Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts.
Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1557–1569.
Van Kleef GA, Homan AC, Beersma B, van Knippenberg D, van Knippenberg B and Damen
F (2009) Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays
on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation. Academy of Management
Journal 52: 562–580.
Van Kleef GA, Anastasopoulou C and Nijstad BA (2010a) Can expressions of anger enhance crea-
tivity? A test of the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 46: 1042–1048.
Van Kleef GA, Homan AC, Beersma B and van Knippenberg D (2010b) On angry leaders and
agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation
and team performance. Psychological Science 21: 1827–1823.
Visser VA, van Knippenberg D, Van Kleef GA and Wisse BM (2013) How leader displays of hap-
piness and sadness influence follower performance: Emotional contagion and creative versus
analytical performance. The Leadership Quarterly 24: 172–188.
Volk S, Thoni C and Ruigrok W (2011) Personality, personal values and cooperation preferences
in public good games: A longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences 50: 810–
815.
Wang M, Liao H, Zhan Y and Shi J (2011) Daily customer mistreatment and employee sabotage
against customers: Examining emotion and resource perspectives. Academy of Management
Journal 54: 312–323.
Wayne SJ and Liden RC (1995) Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A
longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal 38: 232–260.
Williams LJ and Anderson SE (1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predic-
tors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17: 601–617.
Wright TA and Cropanzano R (1998) Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and
voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 83: 486–493.

Nai-Wen Chi is an assistant professor in the Institute of Human Resource Management at National
Sun Yat-Sen University, Taiwan. His primary research is focused on group affect, emotional labor,
team composition, and employee attitudes/behaviors. His work has been published in Journal of
Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Work & Stress, Group & Organizational Management, Applied Psychology: An
International Review, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Business
and Psychology, and British Journal of Industrial Relations. [Email: nwchi@mail.nsysu.edu.tw]
Ta-Rui Ho is an MBA student of the Institute of Human Resource Management at National Sun
Yat-Sen University, Taiwan. [Email: kg210354@hotmail.com]

View publication stats