Full citation
Madrid, H. P., Totterdell, P., Niven, K., & Barros, E. (2016). "Leader affective presence and innovation in teams". Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(3), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000078
Summary
This paper introduces affective presence as a novel personality construct that describes individual differences in the tendency to make interaction partners feel similarly positive or negative, distinct from emotion contagion or the leader's own trait affect. Using two multisource field studies (Study 1: 87 teams from two Chilean public organisations; Study 2: 69 teams from a private health organisation), the authors test how leader affective presence influences team processes and innovation outcomes.
The core finding is that leader positive affective presence increases team information-sharing (the open exchange of ideas and knowledge), which in turn promotes team innovation. Conversely, leader negative affective presence suppresses information-sharing and inhibits innovation. The effect operates through dual pathways: group processes (affective convergence among team members that creates social rewards for interaction) and individual psychological processes (activation of approach vs. avoidance behaviours based on the feelings elicited). Study 2 shows that leader positive affective presence remains the strongest predictor of both information-sharing and innovation, even when compared against leader trait affect (moods), transformational leadership dimensions (intellectual stimulation and relational transparency), making it a more potent team input than traditional leadership variables.
The research contributes by shifting focus from intrapersonal leader characteristics (how leaders themselves feel) to interpersonal effects (how leaders make others feel), suggesting that what matters for team innovation is not the leader's own emotional state but the consistent emotional tone leaders create in their interactions.
Key topics by page
| Page(s) | Topic |
|---|---|
| 3–4 | Affective presence concept, distinguishing it from emotion contagion and trait affect |
| 4–5 | Theoretical frameworks: input-process-output model of teamwork; group affect processes |
| 5–6 | Team information-sharing as a mechanism linking leader affective presence to innovation |
| 6–8 | Hypotheses development: direct effects (H1a–1b), mediation via information-sharing (H2a–2b), incremental validity |
| 12–16 | Study 1 methodology: participants, design, measurement, confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis |
| 16–19 | Study 1 results: support for H1a–2b; correlations and mediation effects; relative weight analysis |
| 19–22 | Study 2 methodology: participants, design, measures including leader trait affect and leadership behaviour |
| 22–25 | Study 2 results: replication of mediation effects, incremental validity tests (H3a supported, H3b partially) |
| 25–28 | Discussion: implications for understanding affective processes in teams; potential "dark side" of affect convergence |
| 28–29 | Limitations (cross-sectional design, common method variance), future research directions |
Quotes
"Affective presence is an interpersonal trait because it is defined by the experiences of interaction partners rather than by those of the focal person." (p. 4)
"Leader positive affective presence may increase approach behavioural tendencies, expressed in cooperation and prosocial behaviour, in a context of social exchange where the positive feelings are consistent among participants." (p. 25)
"Organizations should bear in mind that enhancing innovation in teams depends in part on the tendency of team leaders to elicit positive feelings in their team members." (p. 26)
Key insights
- On affective presence as interpersonal trait: This construct differs fundamentally from leadership mood or trait affect. A leader can feel anxious yet elicit confidence in others, or feel calm yet create tension. The distinction matters because traditional studies of leader emotions focus on intrapersonal contagion, but affective presence is about consistent interpersonal effects that operate independently of the leader's own emotional state.
- On the mechanism: Information-sharing as critical mediator: Positive affective presence does not directly increase innovation; rather, it increases the likelihood that team members share information openly, which then spurs innovation. This explains why some leaders with negative moods can still foster innovation if their interactions create psychological safety and positive affect in others.
- On group processes: When a leader consistently elicits positive affect, team members experience affective convergence (similar feelings), which creates a context of social reward. Lawler's affect theory of social exchange explains that people prefer interaction in rewarding emotional contexts, so information-sharing becomes intrinsically motivating rather than a burden.
- On individual psychological processes: Positive activated feelings trigger approach motivation, facilitating prosocial and cooperative behaviour, whilst negative activated feelings trigger avoidance motivation, inhibiting idea-sharing and risk-taking associated with innovation.
- On incremental validity: In Study 2, leader positive affective presence accounted for 50% of explained variance in team innovation and 47.1% in information-sharing, substantially outweighing leader trait affect (22.7% for innovation) and even ethical leadership dimensions (18.2% for innovation). This suggests affective presence is a more powerful input than currently recognised.
- On limitations and complexity: The paper acknowledges a potential "dark side": affect convergence around negative feelings might reduce cognitive diversity and depth of idea evaluation. Also, leader negative affective presence showed weaker effects than positive affective presence, suggesting the relationship is not symmetrical and may depend on moderators (e.g., social support, learning orientation).
- On implications for practice: Selection, retention, and assignment of leaders should explicitly assess affective presence, how candidates make others feel, not just their technical competence or inspirational speech. This requires a shift in assessment from self-report to 360-feedback or observer-based methods capturing interpersonal effects.
Links: Learning loops and innovation, Culture emerges from repeated practice, True learning is about changing behaviour