Leadership is a strategic factor in every type of organization (Melo & Santos, 2017), and the primary resource in achieving high business performance (Silva et al., 2019). Leadership thus plays a significant role in team performance since the achievement of competitive advantage may come directly from the performance of its team members (Salomão et al., 2020).

Leadership can be defined as the process whereby one delineates a job that needs to be done and how to do it through actions that facilitate individual and collective efforts to achieve common goals (Northouse, 2017). Such leadership can occur through the encouragement of those led (Vergara, 2000), thereby transforming the foreseen into reality (Davis & Newstron, 2004). Among the many definitions of leadership in the literature, common elements emerge as a process, mutual influence, group context, and achievement of goals (Northouse, 2017).

Definitions of leadership retain a common denominator: the need for a mandatory bond with a group of two or more people, where the leader intentionally exerts influence toward the achievement of goals and purposes (Fernandes et al., 2014). Thus, directly influencing, encouraging commitment, and achieving high performance are key to effective leadership (Bunn & Fumagalli, 2016). The leader has an influencing role in productivity; it is up to him to develop a profile and interfere with and have an impact within the organization (Nascimento & Bryto, 2019).

Until the late 1940s, the leadership concept focused on the leader's traits, evidenced by his particularities and natural characteristics and qualities (Lopes et al., 2017). However, since then, through a change of focus, the leader's behavior has begun to be considered, with different approaches in leadership being defined (Lopes et al., 2017). Accordingly, it is necessary to identify particularities in the leader’s behavior in daily management situations and those of his superiors (Santos & Castro, 2008), thereby defining his managerial style.

Leaders play a fundamental role in organizations, establishing new paths and encouraging their team members (Tucker & Russell, 2004). An effective leader can influence the attitudes of his followers to the advantage of the organization (Costa & De Matos, 2002). Thus, the leader is responsible for showing the proper behavior to his followers (Atkinson & Mackenzie, 2015). Influential strategic leaders face highly challenging and demanding tasks, being aware that the adopted leadership style will directly affect their team's productivity (Ireland et al., 2014). Based on the leader's attitudes toward his employees, Melo (2004) defined such styles as being a relationship, situational, or task-driven (Table 1) (Lima et al., 2012).

Table 1

Management styles	Definition
Relationship	The leader will have working relationships based on mutual trust, friendship, warmth, respect for employees' ideas, and interest for their feelings. The leader's ability is to value individuality and emphasize interpersonal relationships with support, guidance, and facilitation.
Situational	The leader will have working relationships based on the interrelationship between the task leader's behavior, the relationship leader's behavior, and the employees' ability and willingness to perform tasks (maturity). The leader's ability is to identify the reality of his work environment and adapt his style to the demands of that environment.
Task	The leader will have working relationships based on the definition and structure of his role and his employees in the pursuit of goals. The leader's ability is to emphasize work, technical aspects of the job, adherence to standards, communication channels, hierarchy, procedures and methods, as well as the performance of work tasks.

Source: developed from Melo (2004).

Based on Melo's (2004) classification of management styles, it is understood that relationship leadership is linked to the leader's availability and attention to his employees, predisposing him to understanding his own failures, respect employee`s opinions, and being concerned about their feelings (Fernandes et al., 2014). Situational leadership is based on flexibility in managerial behavior, where the leadership style varies appropriately according to employee maturity. Task-driven leadership, in turn, is linked to the valorization of the hierarchy, priority in the execution of the tasks, and concern for following established rules and norms (Fernandes et al., 2014, Melo & Santos, 2017).

Understanding an organization’s management styles is key to the development and behavior of the leader and reflects the attitudes of his team (Santos & Castro, 2008; Saeed et al., 2014). While several opinions may be expressed about the best way to lead, the situational approach argues there is no ideal leadership form (Araújo et al., 2013). Given that leaders must adapt to a wide range of situations, correctly assessing their characteristics, identifying which behaviors or responses are appropriate, and employing flexibility are crucial to identifying not which style is best but which will prove most effective (Melo, 2004).

Employees of a retail trade network indicated that both leaders with a relationship-oriented profile and those focused on the task achieved satisfactory performance, but the leader identified by his subordinates as having a profile focused on the situation failed (Salomão et al., 2020). Under the authors’ analysis, leadership profiles focused on relationships or task achievement proved to be more effective than those focused on the situation.

In the context of family businesses, leaders are mainly concerned with aspects of the company’s management in light of the familial context (Miller & Breton-Miller, 2005; Mejia et al., 2011); for example, the reputation of the family linked to the business may be of concern (Landes, 2006). In some cases, family leaders behave in a prudent and supportive manner (Miller et al., 2013), being induced to be good managers to lead their leaders in the best possible way (Miller et al., 2012). The role of the leader in this type of company can have a significant influence on employee satisfaction as they identify with the values and realize that they can trust a manager who knows the business, inspires loyalty, and makes employees feel proud to belong to the organization (Sorenson, 2017).

Conflicts are defined as an incompatibility between personalities, goals, values, and needs involving more than one person or organization (Brookins & Media, 2002; Granadillo, 2008). They are processes in which one side has interests significantly at odds or even opposite to those of the other side (Omisore & Abiodun, 2014). Executives, managers, leaders, employees, and colleagues face everyday conflicts that can engender disagreements, whether they are about company management issues, internal resource distribution, and/or work relationships (Ahmed, 2015).

Ahmed (2015) identified the leading causes of organizational conflicts as communication problems, personality differences, lack of resources to share equally among employees, stress, and sexual harassment (Table 2).

Table 2

Cause	Definition
Bad communication	Poor communication is one of the main causes of conflict between employees in the workplace, resulting from a difference in styles of communication. Non-assertive workplace communication can cause employees to make incorrect assumptions and gossip and decrease productivity and morale.
Personality difference	Employees come from different backgrounds and experiences, which play a role in shaping their personalities. When they fail to understand or accept the differences of others, problems arise in the workplace.
Lack of resources	The principle of sharing is recognized as central to crisis resolution and improved management performance. There must be an administrative policy on how to share available resources equitably and sustainably.
Stress	The feeling of being under a lot of mental or emotional pressure can turn into stress. It can affect how the employee feels, thinks, behaves, and how their body works, causing conflict in the employee-manager relationship.
Sexual harassment	Unwelcome behavior that occurs to the employee because of their sex may be solicited for favors or verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Such conditions cause conflict in the organization if there is no appropriate code of conduct on the desktop.

Source: developed by the authors based on Ahmed (2015).

These types of conflicts can occur at different levels, both horizontal (between pairs or intragroup) and/or vertical (between employee-leader) (Siqueira, 2014). Taking these issues into account, a conflict between leader and employee is understood to exist in two dimensions: (i) relationship; and (ii) task (Siqueira, 2014).

The first, also known as cognitive conflict, is characterized by interpersonal incompatibilities unrelated to everyday tasks, typically including tension, animosity, and contrariness (Jehn, 1995), resentment, and concerns (Eddleston et al., 2008). Relationship conflicts are the most destructive conflicts within organizations (Siqueira, 2014; Alderson, 2015), as they result directly in a lack of productivity (Grote, 2003) and raise employee stress levels (Siqueira, 2014). Studies have also shown that relationship conflicts are detrimental to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Jehn, 1995).

In family businesses, relationship conflict results from family members' role in the family nucleus while working for the company. The contradiction between meritocracy in business and egalitarianism in the family can generate conflicts (Dewi & Ardyan, 2020). Furthermore, family involvement in the family business exposes members to overlapping business and family roles (Qiu & Freel, 2020).

The task conflict, in turn, is directly linked to the activities being performed in a given organization and can include differences of ideas, opinions, points of view (Jehn, 1995), as well as goals, and strategies (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007). This type of conflict is emotion-free, focusing on how individuals' abilities can best be utilized to perform a given job (Jehn & Bendersky, 2003). Discussions regarding task conflicts cover how work should be done and employees can be better leveraged, thus facilitating organizational performance (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).

In family businesses, some conflicts are inevitable (Sorenson, 2017; Qiu & Freel, 2020) and often stand out in comparison to other business configurations (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007), given that, in addition to common organizational causes, conflicts in family businesses frequently involve emotionally fraught long-term relationship issues, since family members are emotionally connected through long-term relationships (Alderson, 2015; Rousseau et al., 2018). Emotional attachments increase the depth of conflict because members with blood ties do not expect to be abused by family members, and when this occurs, hurt, bitterness, and anger are multiplied (Alderson, 2015), thereby increasing internal disputes (Kellermanns & Eddleston, 2004).

Besides, the closer and more stable the relationship, the more critical the conflict (Grote, 2003). Unlike other types of traditional businesses where members of the same family do not need to work with each other daily, there is daily interaction between the family and the business (Alderson, 2015). Similarly, issues directly related to family problems can contribute to business conflicts (Eddleston & Kellermanns, 2007). This is worrisome, as the impact of conflicts within families can destroy the company (Dewi & Ardyan, 2020).

Moreover, conflicts in family firms may stem from: (i) friction between generations (Davis & Harveston, 1999), (ii) the succession process (Massis et al., 2008), (iii) a power struggle (Murad et al., 2017), (iv) sibling rivalry due to divorce, and (v) incompetence on the part of family members (Alderson, 2015). Adding to these causes, many of the conflicts in this type of business configuration are rooted in the divergence of interests between the parties involved, i.e., the agency employed in its structure (Lubatkin et al., 2005).

The SEW theory allows one to understand the emergence of conflicts in a family business, as this approach considers that family members, owners of the business, operate to value this institution and avoid factors that threaten control over their company. Such targeting occurs even if it means an increase in risk or performance below expectations (Gomez-Mejía et al., 2007; Gomez-Mejía et al., 2014).

In this sense, SEW involves emotional aspects, defending non-financial elements that meet the family's affective needs (Gomez-Mejía et al., 2007). Thus, the essence of the theory is found in the family's behavioral tradition in business management. Accordingly, the model is closely linked to how family businesses are motivated and committed to preserving the practices of socio-emotional wealth or adequate capital (Berrone et al., 2012; Qiu & Freel, 2020).

In this context, Berrone et al. (2012) characterize five SEW dimensions: (i) family control and influence in the business, resulting from the family's monitoring of the organization's day-to-day activities; (ii) identification of family members with the company, with a fusion between what the family and the company represent, transforming the two characters into one; (iii) social bonds, through the sharing of family values ​​established in the organization; (iv) family emotional attachment, in the sense that emotions result from everyday situations and are not static. As they arise, they evolve through more or less critical events in each family business system, such as succession, divorce, illness, etc., and (v) renewal of family ties through succession. However, Ng and Hamilton (2021) argue that these characteristics of SEW are heterogeneous, reflecting the different circumstances and characteristics of family members involved in the business over time.

The five dimensions of SEW can be seen positively when evaluated by family members. Conversely, they are considered negatively when family control and strong identification with the company make heirs feel trapped and dependent on the family and the organization (Schulze et al., 2001). They can reduce the willingness of family members to maintain a proactive engagement, with a tendency to place greater emphasis on activities that benefit an individual family member or branch (Kellermanns et al., 2012).

When referring to socio-emotional wealth, it is taken that it is formed by a cluster of feelings, emotions, relationships, and bonds exclusive to family businesses. Therefore, preserving this wealth is directly linked with the involvement of the family's efforts to change the business to the point of success or failure of the company (Wilson et al., 2013).

Empirically, the study by Kellermanns et al. (2012) sought to demonstrate that SEM can have a dark side and detrimental effects on family business stakeholders. The study shows that SEW is the first reference in family businesses, serving as a driver of selfish family behaviors. This is because we understand that the family's needs are placed above those of the company and its stakeholders in some family businesses. Furthermore, the authors point out that family members are encouraged to harm or ignore non-clan stakeholders when strong family ties or identities occur.

Yet another recent investigation (Pimentel et al., 2020) explored perceptions of organizational fairness and levels of commitment with 98 family business workers and 107 small non-family business workers. The results showed no differences between non-family employees between the two types of organizations regarding perceptions of organizational justice. However, the data also revealed that there are significant differences in levels of organizational commitment. Thus, they demonstrated that, in family businesses, employees' perceptions of organizational justice are positively related to levels of responsibility, especially concerning the affective dimension.

The study by Ames et al. (2020) investigated how socio-emotional wealth impacts the professionalization process in a family business, concluding that socio-emotional wealth influences professionalization to preserve family values since this phenomenon occurs to maintain the business and allow it to survive. Also, their research revealed that the hiring of non-family professionals allowed different perceptions for decision-making, adding value to this process.

Another source of organizational conflict is that family firms have more centralized decision-making processes and less formal control systems (Granadillo, 2008), contributing to increased conflicts in the family business. Based on these assumptions, it is possible to infer that family businesses have unique characteristics in both multigenerational (Chaudhary & Batra, 2018) and emotional (Berrone et al., 2012) dimensions, thereby revealing the family’s peculiarities. The presence of family culture, in this context, can provide a competitive advantage. This is when the family's values and vision are incorporated into the organizational culture, with the founders being sensitive to the needs of family employees (Kellermanns et al., 2012).

However, the risks are heightened when family harmony and the equity involved come into play. In this sense, the relationships between parents and children, siblings or couples, and the founder and family members tend to be quite complex and sensitive. Such factors can generate a high emotional charge, which may be used to manipulate family members (Berrone et al., 2012; Souza, 2020). In this scenario, conflicts caused by the divergence of ideas and expectations among family members are commonly found. Accordingly, such conflicts can overturn the harmony of the family group and even destroy the company's assets in the medium and long term (Souza, 2020).

Considering the SEW concepts and the management styles presented above, the present study built its hypotheses under the notion that they influence the emergence of conflicts in family businesses differently. The expectation was to confirm that the greater the relational and situational leadership, the lower the conflicts, since these styles are associated with better work environments and performance. On the other hand, hypotheses argue that task-oriented leadership has a more substantial influence on conflicts, knowing that this style values aspect related to goals and hierarchy.

H1a: The leadership relationship style is negatively related to conflict relationships.

A theoretical model illustrates the relationships amongst these constructs, highlighting the relationships between leadership, situational, and task styles, and relationship and task conflicts (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Source: Prepared by the authors (2022)

This study collected data from 540 participating workers employed by Brazilian family businesses. These were recruited through invitations sent online by the researchers. However, only 410 questionnaires were considered in this study as the remainder were inconsistent or incomplete.

The participants sampled were mostly women [59%; n = 242]. The mean age of participants was 32.51 years [Standard Deviation (s) = 9.20]. Most respondents had completed higher education (56.1%, n = 230), while another 23.2% (n = 95) had incomplete higher education, and 20.7% (n = 85) only had a high school education. Of the total sample, the majority had worked in the family business for over a year (77.1%, n = 316).

Participants answered three anonymous self-report structured survey instruments (questionnaires), one addressing sociodemographic data (sex, age, schooling, and company time), composed of 32 questions. The constructs in this study were developed by using two measurement scales adopted from prior studies:

a) Management Style Assessment Scale (MSAS; Melo, 2004): containing 19 items, grouped into three factors: (i) relationships - referring to the extent to which the leader will have work relationships that are characterized by mutual trust, friendship, respect for employees' ideas, and interest in their feelings (α = 0.94); (ii) situational - referring to the manager's ability to identify the reality of their work environment and adapt their style to the demands of that environment (α = 0.82); and, (iii) task - referring to the probability that the leader has to define and structure his/her role and that of the employees, in the pursuit of goals (α = 0.72). According to Melo (2004), these three factors cover the different theoretical definitions of leadership. The items on this scale were responded to on a five-point Likert scale (1-never acts like this; 5-always acts like this).

b) Supervisor-Subordinate Conflict Scale - (SSCS) developed by Siqueira (2014); translated, adapted, and factorially validated by Martins et al. (2007), evaluates the leader-employee conflict on the basis of the latter’s opinion. It is composed of two factors considered: (i) relationship conflict - disagreement or incompatibility of personalities or disposition in the relations between leader and employee (α = 0.83); and (ii) task conflict - disagreement between leader and employee about work, some project or how to execute it (α = 0.90). Responses to the items were made on a four-point Likert scale ranging from (1-none; 4-very much).

A Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to verify if the hypothetical model fit the data, i.e., if the data collected in the study fitted the instrument's five factors model (managerial styles - relationship, situational and task, and conflicts - relationship and task). A CFA is a procedure used to verify a hypothesis-based measurement model-relationship between latent or constructed variables, or variables (unobserved) and (observed) indicators. Latent factors are unobserved variables. Indicators are manifest variables - responses of items or scores in an instrument. Thus, the CFA provides a more robust analytical framework than traditional statistical methods that do not consider measurement errors in the proxies employed (Ling et al., 2000).

Regarding the coefficients considered, the chi-square (χ²) and the degrees of freedom (df) ratios were used, along with indexes of adjustment [i.e., Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI), TLI and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)]. The χ² indicates the magnitude of the discrepancy between the observed and the modeled covariance matrix, testing the probability of the theoretical model fitting the data. The greater this value, the more inadequate the adjustment. However, the ratio of the χ² to df degrees of freedom was also considered, with 1≤χ2df≤3 (Kline, 2005).

The CFI (Comparative Fit Index) and TLI (Tucker Lewis Index) indexes calculate the relative adjustment of the observed model compared to a base model; values above 0.95 indicate a perfect fit, while those above 0.90 indicate an appropriate adjustment (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA (Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation) is also a measure of a discrepancy and should remain below 0.05, but is acceptable up to 0.08 (Hair et al., 2005; Kline, 2005).

Descriptive statistical analyses and the graphical (Box-plot) and tabular synthesis techniques were employed. Moreover, Pearson's correlation analysis was performed to measure the degree of association between variables. To further explore the data, multiple linear regression was used to test a model in which Managerial Styles (Relationship-oriented (RO), Situational-oriented (SO), and Task-oriented (TO)) predict Relationship Conflicts (RC) and a model in managerial styles predicts Task Conflicts (TC). The CFA was performed in JASP 0.10.2. The descriptive analysis, correlation, and multiple regression were performed with the IBM SPSS Statistics package (v. 23, Chicago IL). We set the significance level to 0.05 in all inferential analyses.

A Confirmatory Factorial Analysis (CFA) was employed to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the study's measures. The goodness-of-fit indexes suggested the model’s plausibility (χ2df=2.90<3.0, CFI = 0.982, TLI = 0.920, RMSEA = 0.068) (Hu & Bentler, 1999, Hair et al., 2005, Kline, 2005). The factorial structure of the first analysis is presented according to a model made up of the three latent managerial style factors (Figure 2A) and the two latent conflict factors (Figure 2B). In all, 28 variables were observed.

Figure 2. Source: by the authors (2022).

The factorial loads of the 28 items were clearly adjusted to the presented structure. In this sense, the loads of the "RO” items varied between 0.77 and 0.88; those of the "SO" between 0.75 and 0.89; and those of "TO" between 0.21 and 071. The items related to "RC" showed loads of between 0.78 and 0.89, while those for "TC" were between 0.84 and 0.86.

Employee-attributed values for each of the five factors mentioned are illustrated in Figure 2, where the extreme traces (lower and upper) indicate the lowest and the highest values assigned on the scales, with 1 and 5 being the MSAS (total) and 0 and 3 for SSCS (total). The dash inside the boxes (horizontal) indicates the averages that divide the employees into two equal parts. For example, in the relationship leadership category, 50% of the employees attributed values up to 3.66 for this factor, while the other 50% attributed values above 3.66. The box's height provides the limit of values assigned among 50% of employees. In the case of relationship leadership, the box's height includes information that the set value limit was 4.33 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Source: prepared by the authors (2022)

Additionally, a Cronbach test was performed to assess the internal consistency of the scales. The results are in the following table (Table 3):

Table 3

Scale	Factors	Items	Cronbach’s Alpha
MSAS	Relationship	1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19	0,941
	Situational	3, 9, 15, 18	0,822
	Task	4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 17	0,721
SSCS	Relationship	1, 2, 3, 4, 5	0,827
	Task	6, 7, 8, 9	0,896

Source: prepared by the authors (2022).