Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity,pro-environmental harmonious passion,and power distance

Abstract

Does environmentally specific transformational leadership promote team pro-environmental behaviors? If so, why and when? Using the cognitive-affective processing system framework, we explore the idea that environmentally specific transformational leadership facilitates team pro-environmental behaviors via team pro-environmental goal clarity and team pro-environmental harmonious passion separately and that such indirect relationships are stronger when the team power distance is high. We used three waves of data from 113 teams in six Chinese manufacturing organizations to test our theoretical predictions. The results of regression analyses show that environmentally specific transformational leadership is positively related to team pro-environmental behaviors; this relationship is parallel mediated by team pro-environmental goal clarity and team pro-environmental harmonious passion. Furthermore, the team power distance strengthens the above parallel mediation effects such that in teams with high levels of power distance, environmentally specific transformational leadership strongly provokes team members’ pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and subsequent pro-environmental behaviors. These findings suggest that environmentally specific transformational leadership is an effective approach for organizations to improve their teams’ pro-environmental behaviors, particularly in the context of strong power distance.

Keywords

cognitive-affective processing system framework environmentally specific transformational leadership team pro-environmental behaviors team pro-environmental goal clarity team pro-environmental harmonious passion team power distance

Introduction

Because of the increasing number of environmental crises, organizations are gradually expected to implement pro-environmental initiatives to achieve environmental sustainability (Ginsberg and Bloom, 2004). However, creating and implementing pro-environmental initiatives rely on organizational leaders to some extent (Robertson and Barling, 2017). Therefore, a growing body of research has begun to investigate environmental leadership. Early research illustrated the characteristics of effective leadership in the environmental sector (e.g. Portugal and Yukl, 1994), whereas recent research has begun to examine the effect of leadership behaviors (i.e. supervisory support, feedback, spirituality) on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) (Afsar et al., 2016; Raineri and Paillé, 2016).

Of the myriad leadership theories, transformational leadership theory is especially relevant for understanding environmental sustainability, as transformational leaders are effective in improving environmental performance (Egri and Herman, 2000; Portugal and Yukl, 1994). Aligned with this stream, Robertson and Barling (2013: 177) shifted the focus to environmentally specific transformational leadership (ESTFL), which refers to ‘a manifestation of transformational leadership in which the content of the leadership behaviors is all focused on encouraging pro-environmental initiatives’. The accumulated evidence shows that ESTFL facilitates PEBs above and beyond general leadership style (e.g. Graves et al., 2013; Robertson, 2018; Robertson and Barling, 2017).

PEBs refer to ‘behaviors that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with, and contribute to, environmental sustainability’ (Ones and Dilchert, 2012: 456). The current literature on ESTFL and PEBs has focused primarily on the individual level of analysis (e.g. Kura, 2016; Robertson, 2018). However, there is growing skepticism as to whether an approach focusing on changing individual PEBs alone will achieve the degree of change required for transformation toward a more sustainable organization (e.g. Bamberg et al., 2015). As Fritsche et al. (2018) argued, individual pro-environmental behavior alone cannot contribute to solving environmental challenges given that environmental crises originate from aggregated human behavior and require collective collaboration to resolve. To address this issue, we explore whether ESTFL facilitates team PEBs, which refer to the collective behaviors in which teams engage that contribute to environmental sustainability. Team PEBs are structurally distinguished from individual PEBs because a team must regulate its members’ social interactions (e.g. environmental-issue-related discussions, feedback, and information sharing; Staats et al., 2004) when engaging in collective PEBs.

How does ESTFL facilitate team PEBs? Using the cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) framework (Mischel and Shoda, 1995), we argue that team pro-environmental goal clarity (a cognitive mechanism) and team pro-environmental harmonious passion (an affective mechanism) mediate the effects of ESTFL on team PEBs. By enacting transformational leadership behaviors, environmentally specific transformational leaders outline an environmental vision to their subordinates and verbally encourage them to participate in environmental protection activities (Chen et al., 2014; Robertson and Barling, 2017). Thus, subordinates (a) clearly understand that environmental protection is an important goal of the team (i.e. pro-environmental goal clarity) and (b) are emotionally invested in performing acts beneficial for the natural environment (i.e. pro-environmental harmonious passion); thus, subordinates are ultimately inspired to engage in PEBs.

We also seek to explore the circumstances under which ESTFL is strongly related to team members’ pro-environmental responses. We focus on the contingency role of the team power distance because this construct ‘deals with individuals’ beliefs about status, authority, and power in organizations’ and thus ‘has a more theoretically direct relationship to leadership reactions than other cultural values’ (Kirkman et al., 2009: 745). Indeed, prior studies have highlighted the crucial role of the power distance in employees’ reactions to their leaders such that employees with a high power distance are more receptive to top–down direction from their leaders and, thus, are more strongly influenced by transformational leadership (e.g. Javidan et al., 2006; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Accordingly, members higher in power distance react better to ESTFL in the form of clearer pro-environmental goal perceptions and higher pro-environmental harmonious passion, thereby ultimately increasing team PEBs.

This study makes several contributions to the literature. First, this study expands our knowledge of the pro-environmental implications of ESTFL from a team-level perspective. Prior studies have mainly stressed the implications of ESTFL for employee PEBs (i.e. these studies have performed an individual level of analysis). Consistent with the popularity of the team structure design in contemporary organizations, we focus on team PEBs, which are considered vital for the greening of organizations, as novel consequences of ESTFL. Second, we examine the mechanisms through which ESTFL relates to team PEBs by identifying the following two pro-environmental mediators: pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion. Consistent with the CAPS framework, the former mediator represents a cognitive mechanism, and the latter mediator represents an affective mechanism. This examination provides a balanced view of the process linking ESTFL to team PEBs. Finally, we introduce the team power distance as a critical boundary condition for the cognitive-affective mechanism linking ESTFL to team PEBs. This investigation can help leaders decide when it is ideal to engage in ESTFL and help team members better understand how their shared value shapes their responses to the team leader.

Theory and hypotheses

ESTFL and team PEBs

ESTFL comprises four typical behaviors: environmental idealized influence; environmental inspirational motivation; environmental intellectual stimulation; and environmental individualized consideration (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Specifically, environmental idealized influence refers to leaders morally committing to an environmentally sustainable planet and actually engaging in pro-environmental actions through which they set a pro-environmental example to be followed (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Environmental inspirational motivation refers to leaders passionately motivating their subordinates to go beyond their self-interests and to strive for a shared pro-environmental vision (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Environmental intellectual stimulation refers to leaders stimulating subordinates to challenge long-held assumptions about their organization’s environmental practices and to handle environmental problems in novel ways (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Environmental individualized consideration refers to leaders developing close relationships with subordinates so that they can help subordinates develop pro-environmental skills (Robertson and Barling, 2013).

We focus on team-level ESTFL aiming to encourage PEBs in the whole team. Such focus is consistent with the prevailing leadership structure in contemporary organizations in which leaders lead whole teams/units as a means of integrating diverse human resources (Peng et al., 2019). Additionally, ‘transformational leadership can be homogeneous across a group such that it is directed to the work unit as a whole, directed to no one employee in particular, or observable by employees across the work unit’ (Richardson and Vandenberg, 2005: 568). Indeed, Robertson (2018) showed that ESTFL creates a pro-environmental work climate by increasing the number of group members who appreciate and promote environmental issues. This finding empirically indicates the possibility of team-level ESTFL.

Numerous studies have found a positive association between ESTFL and employee PEBs because ESTFL can provoke employees’ pro-environmental motivation, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and pro-environmental psychological climate (e.g. Graves et al., 2013; Robertson, 2018; Robertson and Carleton, 2018). We believe that this association also exists at the team level, e.g. team-level ESTFL is linked to the PEBs of a whole team. Specifically, by using each of the four aforementioned behaviors, leaders provide verbal and behavioral cues demonstrating that PEBs are valued and expected (Robertson, 2018). By interpreting such cues, team members will realize that their team leaders want them to engage in PEBs and that this engagement will be recognized and valued by their team leaders. Consequently, team members are likely to act pro-environmentally under ESTFL.

Hypothesis 1: ESTFL is positively related to team PEBs.

Cognitive-affective paths linking ESTFL to team PEBs

We adopt the CAPS framework (Mischel and Shoda, 1995) and suggest that two mechanisms, namely, team pro-environmental cognition and team pro-environmental affect, account for the association between ESTFL and team PEBs. According to the CAPS framework, features of situations activate a set of both cognitive and affective internal reactions. These cognitive-affective reactions exist at multiple levels and result in processes through which people transform their cognitions and affects into stable, meaningful patterns of social action in relation to situations (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). Specifically, cognitive-affective reactions include goal perception and affective responses (Mischel and Shoda, 1995), both of which can be provoked by situational factors, such as leadership behavior, and, in turn, have implications for people’s workplace behaviors.

We identify two constructs that represent the cognitive and affective mechanisms emphasized in the CAPS framework: pro-environment goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion. We selected pro-environment goal clarity as a cognitive mechanism because ESTFL emphasizes the importance of pro-environmental goals (Robertson and Barling, 2017), defines team members’ role responsibilities, and aligns team members’ efforts with these pro-environmental goals. Thus, pro-environmental goal clarity has merit in explaining how ESTFL facilitates team PEBs. In addition, we selected pro-environment harmonious passion as an affective mechanism because prior studies have theoretically justified and empirically tested the individual-level relationship between leadership and pro-environmental harmonious passion (Afsar et al., 2016; Robertson and Barling, 2013). We believe that such a relationship can be applied at the team level.

The mediating role of pro-environment goal clarity

Team pro-environmental goal clarity originates from the goal clarity literature. Goal clarity refers to the perception of ‘the extent to which the individual’s work goals and responsibilities are clearly communicated’ (Sawyer, 1992: 130). Hu and Liden (2011) suggested that goal clarity is a property that operates at the team level. When most team members clearly understand team goals, they communicate role expectations with each other more smoothly, thereby further facilitating the emergence of a clear shared perception of team goals or team goal clarity (Hu and Liden, 2011). In accordance with the focus (i.e. environmental sustainability) of the present research, we conceptualize team pro-environmental goal clarity, which refers to the extent to which team members as a whole perceive that pro-environmental goals are clearly communicated.

By enacting the four typical behaviors, ESTFL facilitates team pro-environmental goal clarity. First, by expressing environmental idealized influence, leaders demonstrate a commitment to an environmentally sustainable planet and, thus, act as environmental role models (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Such role models create a subjective pro-environmental norm allowing team members to clearly realize that they should commit to contributing to an environmentally sustainable planet (Robertson and Carleton, 2018), thereby fostering team members’ shared clear perception of pro-environmental goals. Second, by expressing environmental inspirational motivation, leaders articulate a compelling pro-environmental vision and communicate it to their team members (Chen et al., 2014; Graves et al., 2013). Through vision communication, leaders motivate team members to recognize and accept that protecting the environment is one of the team goals. Third, by using environmental intellectual stimulation, leaders encourage team members to challenge existing solutions and consider environmental issues in innovative ways (Robertson and Barling, 2013). This endeavor clarifies the means by which pro-environmental goals can be achieved by team members, causing them to realize the accessibility of pro-environmental goals and thus enhancing perceived goal clarity. Fourth, by providing environmental individualized consideration, leaders develop team members’ pro-environmental skills and abilities (Robertson and Barling, 2013). By participating in such developmental activities, team members gradually learn that the future direction of the team is toward pro-environmental initiatives and, thus, obtain an accurate understanding of the team’s pro-environmental goals.

Based on the literature concerning goal-setting (Locke and Latham, 1990), we believe that team pro-environmental goal clarity is positively associated with team PEBs. First, the clarity of a goal can direct people’s attention and actions toward that goal (Locke and Latham, 1990). Accordingly, when members of a team feel certain about their goal of protecting the environment, they are more likely to align their workplace behaviors with that goal and, thus, engage in PEBs. Second, the clarity of a goal motivates people to work toward realizing that goal (Locke et al., 1988). As noted by Hu and Liden (2011), team members with clear goals are motivated to contribute to goal attainment. This argument leads us to expect that the clarity of a pro-environmental team goal triggers team members to devote more energy and time to pro-environmental activities because such activities are beneficial for the attainment of the pro-environmental goal. Finally, goal clarity encourages members to be persistent in striving for the goal (Locke and Latham, 1990). Generally, PEBs may not be recognized by a formal reward system (Boiral and Paillé, 2012); such a case would render it difficult for members to continue engaging in such behaviors. This issue can be resolved by the communication of a clear pro-environmental goal. The more clearly team members understand pro-environmental goals, the more persistence they display in performing PEBs, even when they suffer setbacks.

Hypothesis 2: Team pro-environmental goal clarity mediates the positive relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs.

The mediating role of pro-environmental harmonious passion

Harmonious passion is a positive emotion that results in the autonomous motivation to engage in the activity that is the target of the passion (Vallerand et al., 2007). Robertson and Barling (2013) extended harmonious passion theory to the environmental sustainability context and conceptualized harmonious passion for the environment (i.e. pro-environmental harmonious passion), which refers to ‘a positive emotion that results in an individual wanting to engage in PEBs’ (Robertson and Barling, 2013: 180). Pro-environmental harmonious passion is not only a function of the individual but also a property of a group of people. When people feel passionate about the environment, they tend to communicate this passion to others and facilitate the contagion of their passion (Cardon, 2008). Through an emotional contagion process in a team, team members generate a shared positive emotion regarding environmental protection. Thus, we shift the focus of pro-environmental harmonious passion from the individual level to the team level. Team pro-environmental harmonious passion refers to team members’ shared positive emotions resulting in a team’s desire to engage in PEBs.

ESTFL facilitates team harmonious pro-environmental passion via the following two stages: (a) leader–member transfer and (b) member–member transfer. During the first stage, leaders use four behavioral strategies to transmit their harmonious pro-environmental passion to their team members. Specifically, by enacting environmental idealized influence, leaders serve as charismatic role models with a strong passion for the natural environment (Kura, 2016). Given that the passion of charismatic role models is contagious (Cherulnik et al., 2001), team members who are exposed to environmental leaders will autonomously mimic the facial, vocal, or postural expressions of their leaders, thereby causing them to experience congruent emotions (i.e. harmonious passion for the environment). During the second stage, leaders induce the transfer of pro-environmental passion among the team members and, ultimately, create the team’s pro-environmental passion. Emotional contagion is particularly salient among teams with high membership stability, social interdependence, and expression ability (Bartel and Saavedra, 2000; Hatfield et al., 1994). By exhibiting environmental inspirational motivation, ESTFL connects team members’ identity with an organization’s future pro-environmental vision (Kura, 2016). This connection strengthens the members’ membership stability and, thus, smooths the contagion of pro-environmental harmonious passion in the team. In addition, through environmental intellectual stimulation, leaders organize team meetings to discuss environmental issues in optimistic ways (Robertson, 2018). This action increases team members’ interdependence, thereby providing a terrain for pro-environmental harmonious passion to flow from one passionate member to another. Finally, by providing environmental individualized consideration, ESTFL develops team members’ pro-environmental skills (Robertson, 2018), thereby improving the ability of team members to express pro-environmental facial, vocal, and postural cues. In such conditions, team members are able to make their pro-environmental passion contagious to the whole team.

Team pro-environmental harmonious passion increases the likelihood of team PEBs. As noted by Vallerand et al. (2007), passion activates individuals’ resourceful psychological state and makes them energized to engage in the activity that is the object of their passion. Following this logic, we believe that teams’ pro-environmental harmonious passion provokes team members’ actual behaviors that should benefit environmental sustainability, i.e. pro-environmental behavior. This argument is aligned with the notion that people tend to invest more time and effort in activities that they find enjoyable and pleasurable (Ho et al., 2011). Moreover, prior studies have shown that positive emotions are positively related to workplace PEBs (e.g. Bissingolson et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2019) because positive emotions broaden the scope of attention by, for example, extending attention from a self-focus to an environmental focus. As an environmentally specific positive emotion, pro-environmental passion extends the focus of team members’ attention to the welfare of the natural environment. Thus, similar to positive emotion, a team’s pro-environmental harmonious passion is likely to provoke team PEBs.

Hypothesis 3: Team pro-environmental harmonious passion mediates the positive relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs.

Team power distance serves as a boundary condition

When is ESTFL more effective in eliciting team pro-environmental responses? We refer to the CAPS framework to identify the boundary condition of the implications of ESTFL. The CAPS framework posits that interactions between the developmental history and the features of situations activate processing dynamics. Thus, these interactions shape how people cognitively and affectively react to these situations because the developmental history determines people’s construction of the features of situations, thereby affecting how people react to these situations (Mischel and Shoda, 1995). Koopman et al. (2016) provided empirical support for this tenet of the CAPS framework by revealing the moderating role of regulatory focus in the cognitive-affective mechanism underlying an organizational citizenship event. In addition to regulatory focus, Mischel and Shoda’s (1995) framework specified the cultural dimension of the developmental history, i.e. the cultural values people learn through organizational socialization.

Among the cultural values presented in the literature, we focus on the power distance because this construct ‘has a more theoretically direct relationship to leadership reactions than other cultural values’ (Kirkman et al., 2009: 745). As argued by Napier and Ferris (1993: 321), ‘there is perhaps no construct that is so fundamental to interpersonal interactions in organizations than distance’. The power distance can change how leader attributes, behaviors, and reactions are perceived and responded to by employees (Anand et al., 2018). Thus, an understanding of the power distance can partially explain the underpinnings of leadership effectiveness (Javidan et al., 2006; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Therefore, we believe that compared with other characteristics, the power distance is particularly more meaningful for the effectiveness of ESTFL.

The power distance was originally proposed as a form of societal culture describing ‘the extent to which a society accepts the fact that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede, 1980: 45). Although Hofstede (1980) originally conceptualized the power distance at the societal level, several subsequent studies examined this construct as a cultural value at lower levels of analysis, including at the team level (e.g. Cole et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2018; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Prior studies demonstrate the possibility of the development of a team power distance because cultural values depict beliefs and norms regarding what is right and wrong, which are usually shared and communicated among members within a team as a means to regulate their behaviors appropriately and, thus, induce a shared belief and subjective norm (e.g. Cole et al., 2013; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). The team power distance refers to the extent to which most members accept the legitimacy of unequally distributed power in organizations (Hofstede, 1980). In the leadership specific context, the team power distance is conceptualized as ‘team members’ shared preferences regarding the degree to which their leader’s directives should be respected and shown deference’ (Cole et al., 2013: 963).

The moderating role of the team power distance in the relationship among ESTFL, team pro-environmental goal clarity, and team PEBs

ESTFL is more strongly related to team pro-environmental goal clarity when the team power distance is high because a team in which most members have a high power distance creates an ideal terrain for team leaders to exert effects on team members. Specifically, when most team members share a high power distance (i.e. the team’s average power distance is high), they are highly sensitive to input from the team leader, who usually has a higher status (Earley, 1999; Schaubroeck et al., 2007). In an effort to win the favor of their team leader and, thus, work toward enhancing their own status, team members willingly accept the influence of the team leader, such as by endorsing the leader’s opinions and complying with the leader’s directives (Cole et al., 2013; Farh et al., 2007). To conclude, team members with a high rather than low power distance are more respectful of and deferent to the team leader. Given that ESTFL sets a pro-environmental role model (i.e. idealized influence) and communicates high expectations regarding environmental performance (i.e. inspirational motivation), team members with a high power distance are willing to learn from such a role model and internalize these expectations, consequently resulting in a clear understanding of pro-environmental goals. Moreover, members with a high power distance are likely to accept the environmental intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration enacted by ESTFL and, thus, participate in activities targeting discussing environmental issues and developing environmental protection skills. By participating in these activities, the team members clearly perceive the pro-environmental goals. In summary, ESTFL exerts a strong effect on team pro-environmental goal clarity when the team power distance is high.

However, a different typology exists when most team members share a low power distance. Team members with a low power distance view disobedience and opinion disagreements as appropriate (Schaubroeck et al., 2007). Accordingly, such team members embrace ESTFL to a lesser extent, accept leaders’ expectations as less appropriate, or are less responsive to leaders. Therefore, such team members are less likely to emulate the role model, internalize the pro-environmental goals set by ESTFL, and accept the intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration provided by ESTFL. Thus, these team members may not clearly perceive and understand the importance of pro-environmental goals. In summary, ESTFL is weakly related to team pro-environmental goal clarity when the team power distance is low.

Hypothesis 4a: Team power distance positively moderates the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental goal clarity.

Because the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental goal clarity is stronger (versus weaker) when the team power distance is high (versus low), we expect the indirect relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity to be stronger (versus weaker) when the team power distance is high (versus low).

Hypothesis 4b: Team power distance positively moderates the indirect relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity.

The moderating role of the team power distance in the relationship among ESTFL, team harmonious pro-environmental passion, and team PEBs

ESTFL is more likely to boost pro-environmental harmonious passion in teams with a high rather than low power distance because the power distance is beneficial for rapidly transmitting pro-environmental harmonious passion. First, the power distance makes it easier for team leaders to transmit their pro-environmental passion to other team members through emotional contagion. Due to their strong respect for their team leader (Cole et al., 2013), team members with a high power distance tend to observe and mimic the enthusiastic facial, vocal, and postural displays of their team leader, who exerts environmentally idealized influence. The afferent feedback from the environmentally enthusiastic facial, postural, or vocal mimicry leads the team members to experience the pro-environmental passion associated with these behaviors (Robertson and Barling, 2013). Second, power distance promotes the transfer of pro-environmental passion among team members. Team members with a high power distance are deferent to their team leader (Schaubroeck et al., 2007), resulting in great member acceptance of the team leader’s environmental inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized support. With such acceptance, team members engage in pursuing the organizational vision, intellectual discussion, and ability training, thus developing a stable membership, an interdependent relationship, and the ability to express pro-environmental enthusiasm. These characteristics are beneficial conditions for the transfer of pro-environmental harmonious passion among team members and the subsequent generation of a shared pro-environmental harmonious passion.

In contrast, team members with a low power distance are less attracted to the leader’s environmental idealized influence, hindering the contagion of pro-environmental passion from the team leader to the other team members. In addition, team members with a low power distance may not accept the leader’s environmental inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. These actions interfere with the team members’ development of a stable membership, an interdependent relationship, and pro-environmental skills, thereby impeding the transfer of pro-environmental harmonious passion among team members and the generation of a shared pro-environmental harmonious passion. Hence, ESTFL is less likely to boost pro-environmental harmonious passion in teams with a low power distance.

Hypothesis 5a: Team power distance positively moderates the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental harmonious passion.

Because the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental harmonious passion is stronger (versus weaker) when the team power distance is high (versus low), we expect the indirect relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs via team pro-environmental harmonious passion to be stronger (versus weaker) when the team power distance is high (versus low).

Hypothesis 5b: Team power distance positively moderates the indirect relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs via team pro-environmental harmonious passion.

Method

Participants and procedure

We collected three waves of team data from six organizations that are developing renewable energy sources and technologies in the manufacturing industry in China. Following the principle of voluntariness, we recruited 587 members and 147 leaders from 147 teams at the initial stage. The human resource manager in each organization built an online contact group by using WeChat App, through which he or she shared time schedules with the participants to indicate the time at which they should arrive at the meeting room to complete the survey. To increase the rigor of the analysis and enhance the trustworthiness of the study results, we used two data screening methods (i.e. instructed item and self-reported diligence) to identify effective (versus ineffective) respondents (DeSimone et al., 2015).

We collected data at three time points. In Wave 1, 587 members of 147 teams received paper–pencil surveys in which they reported their power distance and rated their team leaders’ ESTFL. During this stage, we obtained effective responses from 524 members of 139 teams. One month later (Wave 2), we sent a second survey to the members who completed the survey in Wave 1; the respondents reported their team pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion. Effective responses were collected from 481 members of 131 teams. In another survey sent one month later (Wave 3), the team leaders rated the team PEBs. Due to leader succession, member turnover, and a business trip, the final sample included 438 members and 113 leaders distributed across 113 teams and yielded a response rate of 74.61% among members (i.e. attrition rate = 27.29%) and a response rate of 76.87% among leaders (i.e. attrition rate = 23.13%). To decide whether the number of responses per team would allow group-level generalization, we calculated the selection rate within each team by using Dawson’s (2003) formula ([N –n]/Nn). No teams were excluded as all were within the acceptable parameters (i.e. ranging from 0 to .22).

The demographic information on organizations, teams, leader, and members is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic information.

Demographic	Category	Proportion	Demographic	Category	Proportion
Organization type	Electric company	33.33%	Team type	Functional team	36.28%
	Motor company	33.33%		R&D team	16.82%
	Environmental protection technology company	16.67%		Production team	32.74%
	Environmental protection technology company	16.67%		Sales team	14.16%
	Solar energy company	16.67%
Member gender	Male	43.61%	Leader gender	Male	61.06%
Member gender	Female	56.39%	Leader gender	Female	38.94%
Member education	College degree	29.45%	Leader education	College degree	21.24%
	Bachelor’s degree	65.75%		Bachelor’s degree	56.64%
	Graduate degree	4.79%		Graduate degree	22.12%
Demographic	Range	Mean (SD)	Demographic	Range	Mean (SD)
Organization scale	155~206	186.50 (19.44)	Organization duration time	8~20	14.50 (4.93)
Team size	3~13	6.28 (1.68)	Team tenure (months)	6~148	45.03 (35.96)
Member age (years)	20~61	27.58 (6.06)	Member tenure (months)	1~144	19.86 (26.28)
Leader age (years)	24~49	32.42 (5.46)	Leader tenure (months)	4~80	21.33 (16.30)

Measures

All measures were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Items of all the measures are presented in the online supplementary material. To evaluate the homogeneity of the members’ rating scores within a team and justify the aggregation of the measures at the group level, we used the tool developed by Biemann et al. (2012) to calculate the within-group interrater reliability statistic (Rwg) and intraclass correlations (ICC(1) and ICC(2)). All values exceeded conventional thresholds [Median Rwg values exceeded .70; ICC(1) values exceeded .12; and ICC(2) values exceeded .60] and are reported below when relevant.

ESTFL

We adapted Robertson’s (2018) 12-item scale to measure team-level ESTFL using the direct consensus approach (Chan, 1998). A sample item included ‘our team leader acts as an environmental role model’ (Cronbach’s α = .96, ICC1 = .37, ICC2 = .69, median Rwg = .88).

Team pro-environmental goal clarity

We adapted Sawyer’s (1992) five-item goal clarity scale to measure team pro-environmental goal clarity. Specifically, the original items were modified to ensure that they were appropriate for the context of environmental management. Moreover, we took a referent shift consensus approach (Chan, 1998) to capture a team-level construct by focusing on ‘team members’ rather than the individual.¹ A sample item included ‘team members are clear that protecting the environment is a goal of the team’ (Cronbach’s α = .91, ICC1 = .28, ICC2 = .60, median Rwg = .92).

Team pro-environmental harmonious passion

We adapted Robertson and Barling’s (2013) 10-item scale to measure team pro-environmental harmonious passion using a referent shift consensus approach (Chan, 1998). A sample item included ‘team members enthusiastically discuss environmental issues with others’ (Cronbach’s α = .95, ICC1 = .71, ICC2 = .92, median Rwg = .90).

Team PEBs

We adapted Robertson and Barling’s (2013) seven-item scale to measure team PEBs by using the referent shift approach (Chan, 1998). The team leaders were asked to rate the extent to which the team members engage in collective actions targeted at contributing to environmental sustainability. A sample item included ‘team members take part in environmentally friendly programs’ (Cronbach’s α = .95). Given that team PEBs were rated by team leaders rather than members, there was no need to aggregate the data. As such, we could not calculate the ICC1, ICC2, and median Rwg of team PEBs.

Team power distance

We measured power distance by using the six-item scale developed by Dorfman and Howell (1988). A sample item includes ‘subordinates should not disagree with leaders’ decisions’. Consistent with the prior studies (Cole et al., 2013), we aggregated the team members’ responses to yield an overall, team-level power distance score by using the direct consensus approach (Chan, 1998) (Cronbach’s α = .97, ICC1 = .35, ICC2 = .68, median Rwg = .87).

Controls

According to previous best-practice recommendations (Bernerth and Aguinis, 2016), only variables that are theoretically or empirically related to the focal variables should be controlled for. Following this suggestion, the percentage of female members, team average age, average education, and average tenure were controlled for because these demographic variables are assumed to be positively associated with pro-environmental behavior (e.g. Kim et al., 2014, 2019). However, the associations of such demographic variables with team pro-environmental behavior were not supported in our study. Given that the results including and excluding controls remain the same and the controls were not integral to our model, we presented the results excluding the controls.

Analytic approach

Given that all study variables are considered at the team level (i.e. the same level rather than a multilevel), we conducted an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis by using Mplus 7 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2012) to test our hypotheses. This analytic approach is widely used in team management research in which all study variables are considered at the team level (e.g. Harvey et al., 2019; Shemla and Wegge, 2019). To test the hypothesized mediation effects, we constructed 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the mediation effects. To test the moderated mediation effect, we applied the moderated path analysis approach (Edwards and Lambert, 2007) to estimate two sets of indirect effects at high and low levels of the moderator. Moreover, we constructed 95% CIs for the difference score between these two indirect effects.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses

As presented in Table 2, the five-factor model (χ² = 1250.09, df = 726, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06) fit the data better than the competing models (Δχ²s ⩾ 465.21, Δdfs ⩾ 8, ps < .001). Hence, these five variables were distinct from each other.

Table 2.

Results of confirmatory factor analyses.

Model	χ ²	df	Δχ² (Δdf)	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	TLI
Five-factor model: ESTFL; PEGC; PEP; PEBs; PD	1250.09	726	–	.08	.06	.91	.90
Four-factor model a: ESTFL + PEGC; PEP; PEBs; PD	1737.81	734	487.72(8)***	.11	.10	.83	.82
Four-factor model b: ESTFL + PEP; PEGC; PEBs; PD	2411.43	734	1161.34(8)***	.14	.15	.71	.70
Four-factor model c: ESTFL + PEBs; PEGC; PEP; PD	2064.38	734	814.29(8)***	.13	.13	.77	.76
Four-factor model d: ESTFL + PD; PEGC; PEP; PEBs	3017.33	734	1767.24(8)***	.17	.29	.61	.59
Four-factor model e: ESTFL; PEGC + PEP; PEBs; PD	1804.05	734	553.96(8)***	.11	.13	.82	.81
Four-factor model f: ESTFL; PEGC + PEBs; PEP; PD	1715.30	734	465.21(8)***	.11	.10	.83	.82
Four-factor model g: ESTFL; PEGC + PD; PEP; PEBs	1828.40	734	578.31(8)***	.12	.16	.81	.80
Four-factor model h: ESTFL; PEGC; PEP + PEBs; PD	2072.32	734	822.23(8)***	.13	.14	.77	.76
Four-factor model i: ESTFL; PEGC; PEP + PD; PEBs	2590.99	734	1340.9(8)***	.15	.24	.68	.66
Four-factor model j: ESTFL; PEGC; PEP; PEBs + PD	2126.18	734	876.09(8)***	.13	.12	.76	.75

n _team = 113. In the five-factor model, ESTFL = environmentally specific transformational leadership (four second-order indicators, each second-order indicator having three items), PEGC = pro-environmental goal clarity (five indicators), PEP = pro-environmental harmonious passion (10 indicators), PEBs = pro-environmental behaviors (seven indicators), PD = power distance (six indicators). + means factor combination. All alternative models are compared to the hypothesized model. All Δχ² are significant at p < .001.

Preliminary analyses and correlations

As shown in Table 3, ESTFL was positively related to team pro-environmental goal clarity (r = .43, p < .001), team pro-environmental harmonious passion (r = .42, p < .001), and team PEBs (r = .44, p < .001). Moreover, team pro-environmental goal clarity (r = .47, p < .001) and team pro-environmental harmonious passion (r = .41, p < .001) were positively related to team PEBs.

Table 3.

Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5
1 ESTFL
2 Team pro-environmental goal clarity	.43***
3 Team pro-environmental harmonious passion	.42***	.21*
4 Team PEBs	.44***	.47***	.41***
5 Team power distance	.08	–.02	.12	.10
Mean	3.56	3.90	3.72	3.61	3.58
SD	.57	.43	.49	.65	.66

n _team = 113, *p < .05, ***p < .001.

Testing of the hypotheses

Table 4 presents the results of the regression analyses.

Table 4.

Summary of regression analyses.

Variables	Team pro-environmental behaviors		Team pro-environmental goal clarity		Team pro-environmental harmonious passion
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
Intercept	1.89*	–.28	2.76***	3.89**	2.41***	3.71***
Independent variable
ESTFL	.49***	.21	.32***	.18***	.37***	.20***
Mediators
Team pro-environmental goal clarity		.48***
Team pro-environmental harmonious passion		.35**
Moderator
Team power distance (TPD)				–.02		.05
ESTFL × TPD				.09**		.09*
R ²	.18**	.31***	.18**	.25***	.18**	.23**

n _team = 113. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Main effect

As shown in Model 1, ESTFL was positively related to team PEBs (b = .49, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.

Mediation effects

As shown in Table 4, ESTFL was positively related to team pro-environmental goal clarity (b = .32, p < .001, Model 3) and team pro-environmental harmonious passion (b = .37, p < .001, Model 5). As shown in Model 2, team pro-environmental goal clarity (b = .48, p < .001) and team pro-environmental harmonious passion (b = .35, p < .01) were positively related to team PEBs. The indirect effect of ESTFL on team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity was .15 (95% CI = .05, .26), and the indirect effect of ESTFL on team PEBs via team pro-environmental harmonious passion was .13 (95% CI = .03, .23). We concluded that team pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion separately mediated the relationship between ESTFL and team PEBs. Hence, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported.

Moderation effects

As shown in Model 4, the team power distance positively moderated the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental goal clarity (b = .09, p < .01). The results of a simple slope analysis (see Figure 1) showed that the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental goal clarity was strong when the team power distance was high (b = .27, p < .001), while this relationship was weak when the team power distance was low (b = .08, p > .05). While testing Hypothesis 4b (the moderated mediation hypothesis), we found that ESTFL had a stronger indirect relationship with team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity when the team power distance was high (mediating effect = .13, p < .01, 95% CI [.05, .21]) and had a weaker indirect relationship with team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity when the team power distance was low (mediating effect = .04, p > .05, 95% CI [–.01, .09]). There was a significant difference between these two mediating effects (b = .09, p < .05, 95% CI [.01, .16]). Hence, Hypotheses 4a and 4b were supported.

Figure 1.

The moderating effect of the team power distance on the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental goal clarity.

As shown in Model 6, the team power distance positively moderated the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental harmonious passion (b = .09, p < .05). The results of a simple slope analysis (see Figure 2) showed that the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental harmonious passion was strong when the team power distance was high (b = .28, p < .001), while this relationship was weak when the team power distance was low (b = .11, p < .05). While testing Hypothesis 4b, we found that ESTFL had a stronger indirect relationship with team PEBs via team pro-environmental harmonious passion when team power distance was high (mediating effect = .10, p < .01, 95% CI [.03, .17]) and had a weaker indirect relationship with team PEBs via team pro-environmental harmonious passion when the team power distance was low (mediating effect = .04, p > .05, 95% CI [–.01, .09]). There was a marginally significant difference between these two mediating effects (b = .06, p = .05, 95% CI [–.00, .12]). Hence, Hypothesis 5a was supported but Hypothesis 5b was supported only marginally.

Figure 2.

The moderating effect of the team power distance on the relationship between ESTFL and team pro-environmental harmonious passion.

Discussion

Based on three waves of data from 113 teams, we identify ESTFL as a critical facilitator of team PEBs. Moreover, we find that team pro-environmental goal clarity and team pro-environmental harmonious passion are parallel mediators and that team power distance is a positive moderator of the indirect relationships.

Theoretical implications

A key contribution of the present research is that this study uncovers the team-level pro-environmental implications of ESTFL, i.e. promoting the PEBs of an entire team. Prior research has identified the vital role of ESTFL in increasing individual-level PEBs (e.g. Graves et al., 2013; Robertson, 2018; Robertson and Carleton, 2018). However, there remains an incomplete understanding of the consequences of ESTFL. Specifically, ESTFL is targeted at pro-environmental initiatives, which can be successfully implemented only by a collective effort and not by an individual employee (Fritsche et al., 2018). Given the prevalence of team-based organizational structures, how to facilitate PEBs as teams is of particular importance for attaining the goal of ESTFL. Indeed, some scholars have recognized this point and called for investigations to extend the prior work on ESTFL and team pro-environmental behavior by introducing a ‘team-level’ perspective (Robertson and Barling, 2013: 188). Surprisingly, this call has remained unanswered until now. Responding to this call, the present research theorizes and tests the linkage between ESTFL and team PEBs. Therefore, the present research enriches the understanding of the function of ESTFL in a team context.

The present research underscores the critical team mechanisms linking ESTFL to team PEBs. The results show that ESTFL has not only a direct but also an indirect relationship with team PEBs via team pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion. Specifically, based on the CAPS framework (Mischel and Shoda, 1995), we particularly identified the following two relevant processes that translate environmental leadership (input) into team PEBs (output): pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion. These findings enrich the general research concerning input–process–output models (IPO, McGrath, 1984) that do not clearly specify the mediating process. Goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion serve as two parallel mediators rather than serial mediators. Thus, we conclude that the cognitive and affective mechanisms function independently. These findings contribute to our comprehensive understanding of not only how ESTFL promotes team PEBs but also how multiple mediators work in explaining this relationship.

The present research identifies the team power distance as a key contingency for the effects of ESTFL. Consistent with our predictions, we find that the extent to which ESTFL relates to team processes (i.e. pro-environmental goal clarity and pro-environmental harmonious passion) and subsequent PEBs depends on the team power distance. In teams with a high power distance, members are more likely to behave according to the requests of their leaders (Cole et al., 2013), amplifying the pro-environmental implications of ESTFL. This finding suggests that pro-environmental leadership alone may be insufficient for teams to engage in PEBs. Indeed, the team power distance plays a vital role in shaping team members’ pro-environmental responses when following a pro-environmental leader. By revealing the moderating role of the team power distance, the present research provides a contingency view of the pro-environmental implications of ESTFL and responds to the research call for investigations of the extent to which transformational leadership behaviors are effective across teams with different power distances (Kirkman et al., 2009).

Practical implications

The present research provides several implications for practitioners regarding how to facilitate the implementation of environmental initiatives at the team level and improve their organizations’ environmental performance through team PEBs. First, our results suggest that a leader’s ESTFL is critical in facilitating team PEBs. Accordingly, organizations that want to motivate teams to collectively engage in PEBs should ensure that leaders have the ability to provide ESTFL. Otherwise, organizations should invest in environmental leadership development initiatives in which leaders are trained in ESTFL. Specifically, organizations should direct their leaders to recognize the importance of environmental protection and to learn about the proper ways to sort and recycle materials. In doing so, leaders will learn to act as pro-environmental role models and thus improve their environmental idealized influence on their team members. Moreover, leaders should be trained to motivate their team members to work in an environmentally friendly manner by (a) passionately describing the future of the organization’s environmental performance, (b) encouraging team members to think creatively about improving the organization’s environmental performance by showing openness to different opinions, and (c) developing their members’ ability to contribute to the organization’s environmental performance by sharing knowledge regarding environmental protection.

Leaders should devote efforts to fostering team members’ clear understanding of pro-environmental goals and strong pro-environmental harmonious passion by demonstrating compelling pro-environmental initiatives and expressing enthusiasm about such initiatives. To nurture team members’ pro-environmental harmonious passion, organizations must increase team members’ interest in pro-environmental activities by fostering conditions that make employees feel that their environmental contributions make a difference. For example, organizations could emphasize that pro-environmental work can be meaningful and offer team members positive feedback regarding the importance of the pro-environmental work they perform and their contributions to the organization’s environmental performance. In this way, team members will feel a stronger sense of ownership and interest in their pro-environmental activities and thus experience harmonious passion for pro-environmental activities.

Finally, given that ESTFL exerts a strong effect on team pro-environmental responses when team power distance is high, we suggest that organizations consider assessing candidates’ power distance during the hiring process and selecting candidates who demonstrate higher levels of power distance. In addition, organizations could train their members (especially those with low levels of power distance) to have more respect for and deference to their leaders in the environmental management context. These team members must go through scenario-based workshops to learn how to follow organizational rules and to align their work habits with the goal of their leaders. Training can also teach team leaders to behave in ways such that they will appear to their members to be somewhat socially distant; the appearance of social distance can promote team members’ respect and compliance (Anand at al., 2018). For instance, leaders could be trained to communicate with team members in formal and awe-inspiring ways.

Limitations and directions for future research

Notably, the present research has several limitations. First, our findings are based on a sample of six manufacturing organizations (which are primarily in the renewables sector). Although congruent with previous research, focusing on manufacturing organizations may limit the generalizability of our findings to other industries. Indeed, sustainability development is a crucial issue for contemporary organizations in various industries. Thus, we believe ESTFL is effective in promoting team PEBs across industries. Nevertheless, we encourage future research to test our theoretical predictions by considering other industries, such as service, finance, and information technology.

Second, although the effect of ESTFL on team pro-environmental harmonious passion was supported, we cannot rule out the possibility of a reverse relationship. Frequent social interactions within teams provide sufficient opportunities for team members to translate their pro-environmental passion to their team leader through both implicit and explicit sharing processes (Muller et al., 2014), which, in turn, could facilitate their team leader’s ESTFL. Via implicit sharing processes, team members’ unconscious expressions of passion could trigger similar emotional experiences in their team leader. Via explicit sharing processes, team members consciously adopt interpersonal emotion management strategies to influence their team leader’s passion for the environment. We encourage further research to explore this issue.

The team power distance, which is the perspective we adopt in this study, is only one lens through which team members decide how to behave toward their leaders. This decision can also be guided by the team members’ personality traits (Kim et al., 2014), corporate social responsibility (Tian and Robertson, 2019), and environmental strategy (Norton et al., 2017). Thus, future research could examine whether the above factors serve as boundary conditions for the effects of ESTFL. Such an endeavor could help explain the variation in the implications of ESTFL for team PEBs.

Finally, future research could examine whether engaging in PEBs provides a level of enrichment or distraction for actors in low autonomy manufacturing roles. Some employees in repetitive manufacturing roles may improve the meaningfulness of their job by engaging in PEBs, thereby rendering a resource generation process, while other employees may view PEBs as interfering with their work goal progress. To reconcile the above two competing viewpoints, we expect that a regulatory focus would determine whether engaging in PEBs enriches or distracts from jobs. Promotion-focused employees can satisfy their need for growth by engaging in PEBs, which subsequently leads to resource generation. However, prevention-focused employees may view engagement in PEBs as a resource-consuming endeavor that detracts from their energy and time. We hope that future research could empirically test this issue.

Conclusion

The present research found a positive link between ESTFL and team PEBs; this relationship was mediated by the parallel mediators of team pro-environmental goal clarity and team pro-environmental harmonious passion. Moreover, these indirect relationships were stronger in teams where most members held a high power distance. These findings show that the implications of ESTFL could extend beyond the individual level to the team level, thus providing inspiring insights for practitioners regarding how to use leadership to manage the PEBs of an entire team.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_online_materials – Supplemental material for Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance

Supplemental material, Supplementary_online_materials for Environmentally specific transformational leadership and team pro-environmental behaviors: The roles of pro-environmental goal clarity, pro-environmental harmonious passion, and power distance by Jian Peng, Xiao Chen, Yanchun Zou and Qi Nie in Human Relations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the associate editor and the three anonymous reviewers for valuable comments. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: this research was supported by the funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number: 71902048].

ORCID iDs

Jian Peng

Xiao Chen

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Jian Peng is an associate professor of management in the School of Management, Guangzhou University, China. His primary research interests include leadership, leader–follower fit, and team/group dynamics. He has published widely in international scholarly journals and his work has appeared in Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Asian Business and Management, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and Personality and Individual Differences. He is an editor at Human Resources Development of China (Chinese Journal) and serves as a member of the editorial review board of Journal of Managerial Psychology. [Email: pengjiannut@163.com]

Xiao Chen is an assistant professor at the School of Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, China. Her primary research interests include leadership and workplace loneliness. Her research has been published in Human Relations, Journal of Business Ethics, Asian Business and Management, and Frontiers in Psychology. [Email: xiaochen_hrm@163.com]

Yanchun Zou is a professor of management in the School of Management, Guangzhou University, China. Her primary research interests include leadership and psychological capital. Her research has been published in Human Relations and Asian Business and Management. [Email: gzhuzyc@163.com]

Qi Nie is a PhD candidate in the College of Economics and Management, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, China. Her primary research interests include leadership and micro-break in the workplace. Her research has been published in Human Relations. [Email: heynieqi@qq.com]

References

Afsar

Badir

Kiani

(2016) Linking spiritual leadership and employee pro-environmental behavior: The influence of workplace spirituality, intrinsic motivation, and environmental passion. Journal of Environmental Psychology 45: 79–88.

Anand

Vidyarthi

Rolnicki

(2018) Leader–member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviors: Contextual effects of leader power distance and group task interdependence. The Leadership Quarterly 29(4): 489–500.

Bamberg

Rees

Seebauer

(2015) Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43: 155–165.

Bartel

Saavedra

(2000) The collective construction of work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly 45(2): 197–231.

Bernerth

Aguinis

(2016) A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology 69(1): 229–283.

Biemann

Cole

Voelpel

(2012) Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG (J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly 23(1): 66–80.

Bissingolson

Iyer

Fielding

, et al. (2013) Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(2): 156–175.

Boiral

Paillé

(2012) Organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: Measurement and validation. Journal of Business Ethics 109(4): 431–445.

Cardon

(2008) Is passion contagious? The transference of entrepreneurial passion to subordinates. Human Resource Management Review 18(2): 77–86.

10.

Chan

(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.

11.

Chen

Chang

Lin

(2014) Green transformational leadership and green performance: The mediation effects of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Sustainability 6(10): 6604–6621.

12.

Cherulnik

Donley

Wiewel

TSR

, et al. (2001) Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders’ charisma on observers’ affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(10): 2149–2159.

13.

Cole

Carter

Zhang

(2013) Leader–team congruence in power distance values and team effectiveness: The mediating role of procedural justice climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 98(6): 962–973.

14.

Dawson

(2003) Do we have enough? The accuracy of incomplete data from small groups. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting Best Paper Proceedings, Briarcliff Manor, NY.

15.

DeSimone

Harms

DeSimone

(2015) Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(2): 171–181.

16.

Dorfman

Howell

(1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. In: Farmer

McGoun

(eds) Advances in International Comparative Management. London: JAI Press, 127–150.

17.

Earley

(1999) Playing follow the leader: Status-determining traits in relation to collective efficacy across cultures. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 80(3): 192–212.

18.

Edwards

Lambert

(2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods 12(1): 1–22.

19.

Egri

Herman

(2000) Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 571–604.

20.

Farh

Hackett

Liang

(2007) Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support – employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal 50(3): 715–729.

21.

Fritsche

Barth

Jugert

, et al. (2018) A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review 125(2): 245–269.

22.

Ginsberg

Bloom

(2004) Choosing the right green marketing strategy. MIT Sloan Management Review 46(1): 79–84.

23.

Graves

Sarkis

Zhu

(2013) How transformational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee proenvironmental behaviors in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology 35: 81–91.

24.

Harvey

Johnson

Roloff

, et al. (2019) From orientation to behavior: The interplay between learning orientation, open-mindedness, and psychological safety in team learning. Human Relations 72(11): 1726–1751.

25.

Hatfield

Cacioppo

Rapson

(1994) Emotional Contagion. Paris: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Hinkin

(1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods 1(1): 104–121.

27.

Wong

Lee

(2011) A tale of passion: Linking job passion and cognitive engagement to employee work performance. Journal of Management Studies 48(1): 26–47.

28.

Hofstede

(1980) Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? Organizational Dynamics 9(1): 42–63.

29.

Liden

(2011) Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(4): 851–862.

30.

Erdogan

Jiang

, et al. (2018) Leader humility and team creativity: The role of team information sharing, psychological safety, and power distance. Journal of Applied Psychology 103(3): 313–323.

31.

Javidan

Dorfman

De Luque

, et al. (2006) In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural lessons in leadership from project globe. Academy of Management Perspectives 20(1): 67–90.

32.

Kim

Han

(2019) A cross level investigation on the linkage between job satisfaction and voluntary workplace green behavior. Journal of Business Ethics 159(4): 1199–1214.

33.

Kim

Han

, et al. (2014) Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management 43(5): 1335–1358.

34.

Kirkman

Chen

Farh

, et al. (2009) Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 744–764.

35.

Koopman

Lanaj

Scott

(2016) Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal 59(2): 414–435.

36.

Kura

(2016) Linking environmentally specific transformational leadership and environmental concern to green behaviour at work. Global Business Review 17(3S): 1S–14S.

37.

Locke

Latham

(1990) Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science 1(4): 240–246.

38.

Locke

Latham

Erez

(1988) The determinants of goal commitment. Academy of Management Review 13(1): 23–39.

39.

McGrath

(1984) Groups: Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

40.

Mischel

Shoda

(1995) A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review 102(2): 246–268.

41.

Muller

Pfarrer

Little

(2014) A theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy decisions. Academy of Management Review 39(1): 1–21.

42.

Muthén

(1998–2012) Mplus User’s Guide (7th Ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

43.

Napier

Ferris

(1993) Distance in organizations. Human Resource Management Review 3(4): 321–357.

44.

Norton

Zacher

Parker

, et al. (2017) Bridging the gap between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(7): 996–1015.

45.

Ones

Dilchert

(2012) Environmental sustainability at work: A call to action. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 5(4): 444–466.

46.

Peng

Wang

Chen

(2019) Does self-serving leadership hinder team creativity? A moderated dual-path model. Journal of Business Ethics 159(2): 419–433.

47.

Portugal

Yukl

(1994) Perspectives on environmental leadership. Leadership Quarterly 5(3–4): 271–276.

48.

Raineri

Paillé

(2016) Linking corporate policy and supervisory support with environmental citizenship behaviors: The role of employee environmental beliefs and commitment. Journal of Business Ethics 137(1): 129–148.

49.

Richardson

Vandenberg

(2005) Integrating managerial perceptions and transformational leadership into a work-unit level model of employee involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(5): 561–589.

50.

Robertson

(2018) The nature, measurement and nomological network of environmentally specific transformational leadership. Journal of Business Ethics 151(4): 961–975.

51.

Robertson

Barling

(2013) Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(2): 176–194.

52.

Robertson

Barling

(2017) Contrasting the nature and effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38(1): 22–41.

53.

Robertson

Carleton

(2018) Uncovering how and when environmental leadership affects employees’ voluntary pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 25(2): 197–210.

54.

Sawyer

(1992) Goal and process clarity: Specification of multiple constructs of role ambiguity and a structural equation model of their antecedents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(2): 130–142.

55.

Schaubroeck

Lam

SSK

Cha

(2007) Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4): 1020–1030.

56.

Shemla

Wegge

(2019) Managing diverse teams by enhancing team identification: The mediating role of perceived diversity. Human Relations 72(4): 755–777.

57.

Staats

Harland

Wilke

HAM

(2004) Effecting durable change: A team approach to improve environmental behavior in the household. Environment & Behavior 36(3): 341–367.

58.

Tian

Robertson

(2019) How and when does perceived CSR affect employees’ engagement in voluntary pro-environmental behavior? Journal of Business Ethics 155(2): 399–412.

59.

Vallerand

Salvy

Mageau

, et al. (2007) On the role of passion in performance. Journal of Personality 75(3): 505–533.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB