|
Article Excerpt
There is little research examining variability in leadership outcomes over time as a function of individual differences. The present study investigates how the extent to which individuals are perceived as leaders varies over time, with self-monitoring and authentic leadership as predictors. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses found that change in the extent to which individuals were perceived to be leaders by others varied across individuals, but this variability was not due to individuals' self-monitoring, authentic leadership, or declining interrater reliability. It was also found that individuals' overestimation of themselves as leaders increased over time. Finally, an initial measure of authentic leadership was developed.
Keywords: leadership; perception; self-monitoring; authentic leadership; longitudinal studies; individual differences
**********
A general criticism of organizational behavior research is that it features a lack of longitudinal designs (Huber & Van de Ven, 1995). Reliance on cross-sectional data is especially at odds with the goals of leadership research, as many theories that include time as a factor have not been fully tested (Ployhart, Holtz, & Bliese, 2002; Yukl, 2002). Although recent longitudinal studies have investigated such important issues as transformational leadership (e.g., Keller, 2006) and implicit leadership theories (ILTs; e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), there remains little understanding of trait-based predictors of change in leadership outcomes over time (Ployhart et al., 2002). The present study contributes to leadership research by examining individual difference predictors, self-monitoring and authentic leadership, of change in how individuals are perceived as leaders over time.
In examining the proposed relationships, the present study both converges with and diverges from general trends in longitudinal leadership research. Longitudinal leadership studies have generally involved time spans of a few months (Yukl, 2002) and have used military samples (e.g., Atwater, Dionne, Avolio, Camobreco, & Lau, 1999; Bradley, Nicol, Charbonneau, & Meyer, 2002; Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Smither, London, & Richmond, 2005). Also, many existing studies do not use repeated measurements of the same variable over time; instead, they involve the measurement of predictors at Time 1 and different types of outcomes (e.g., leadership style vs. leader effectiveness ratings) at later times (e.g., De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2005; Keller, 2006; Smither et al., 2005). The present study's greatest contribution to leadership research in general is that it will use repeated measurement of the same variable, leadership perceptions, to model change in an important outcome variable in leadership research, using a random coefficients modeling (RCM) approach.
Perceptions of Leadership
Examining the nature of perceptions of individuals as leaders, as an outcome, is important for theoretical and practical reasons. According to Cronshaw and Lord (1987), research on leadership perceptions can inform broader research into the nature of social perceptions. Also, because perceptions of leadership are involved in the development of influence and status relationships at work (Cronshaw & Lord, 1987), research on leadership perceptions can enhance an understanding of who is likely to be conferred with influence and status over others at work.
That the length of time over which individuals are afforded with leadership status may change according to individual differences has implications for selection and team composition. For selection, organizations would likely want to select or promote individuals into leadership positions who are likely to be perceived as leaders by others over time. Although those individuals may not be significantly regarded as leaders initially, their selection or promotion to leadership status should pay dividends over time. Knowing which individual differences predict change in leadership perceptions would allow organizations to know who should be placed into leadership positions. For team composition, it may be that individuals should be placed in teams according to how long teams are expected to be in tact. To have a greater proportion of individuals who share in group leadership roles, which has been found to positively predict team performance (Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 2006), it may be that individuals of certain personality characteristics should be placed into shorter-term teams, whereas others should be placed into longer-term teams.
Personality and Leadership Evaluations
The present study contends that the extent to which individuals are perceived as leaders by others, within newly formed groups, is not stable over time and that individual differences can predict the extent to which they change. Previous research shows personality variables to significantly predict the extent to which individuals are perceived as leaders (for a review, see Avolio, Sosik, Jung, & Berson, 2003). In now classic studies, Kenny and Zaccaro (1983) found that 49% to 82% of the total variance in how individuals were perceived as leaders was explained by stable characteristics of those individuals, defined as variance across situations due to ratee effects. Using a similar strategy, Zaccaro, Foti, and Kenny (1991) found individual differences to account for 59% of variability in how individuals were rated as leaders, which included how strongly individuals were considered as leaders and others' preferences for having individuals as leaders in the future. A meta-analysis by Lord, DeVader, and Alliger (1986) found significant positive effect sizes among intelligence, dominance, and masculinity and leadership perceptions. More recently, a meta-analysis by Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) found significant effect sizes between all Big 5 traits, except agreeableness, and leadership perceptions. This line of research shows personality to predict how individuals are perceived as leaders.
A limitation of these previous studies, however, is that they have used mainly cross-sectional designs. This is an important limitation because studies by Lim, Ployhart, and colleagues (Lim & Ployhart, 2004; Ployhart, Lim, & Chan, 2001) suggest that personality has different relationships with leader evaluations over different periods of time. For example, in two studies, the researchers found that agreeableness and openness predicted leader effectiveness ratings after an assessment center but not ratings made after 3 months of participants' military service. The studies suggest that, similarly to job performance (e.g., Ployhart & Hakel, 1998), evaluations of individuals as leaders may vary over time and that individual differences may predict this variability. However, because the studies did not model change in repeated measurements of the same outcome variable, the suggestions from the studies require further, direct testing. The present study will do so using individual differences that should be particularly relevant in examining differences in how individuals are perceived as leaders across time, self-monitoring, and authentic leadership. Existing research and theory suggests that self-monitoring and authentic leadership are especially likely to have dynamic relationships with leadership outcomes over time.
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974) reflects individual differences in the propensity to engage in certain forms of impression management (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Individuals high in self-monitoring use impression management to construct public images that are aligned with others' behavioral expectations to appear socially appropriate and garner favorable outcomes (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Individuals low in self-monitoring attempt to project images that accurately reflect their internal beliefs, emotions, and attitudes. Self-monitoring has implications for a wide range of work behaviors, such as job performance, satisfaction, and commitment (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002).
Self-Monitoring and Leadership
Cross-sectional research has found self-monitoring to positively predict the extent to which individuals are perceived as leaders (Day et al., 2002; Zaccaro et al., 1991). Because of the use of impression management by individuals high in self-monitoring (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000), there is potential for change in the relationship between self-monitoring and perceptions of leadership over time. To understand how self-monitoring relates to leadership in real contexts in which groups exist for more than the time span of one activity, it is necessary to examine the relationship over time.
Whereas no previous studies have addressed the question of how self-monitoring relates to leader outcomes over time, a series of "theoretical letters" exchanged between Arthur G. Bedeian and David V. Day (2004), published in Leadership Quarterly, offered conflicting viewpoints. Whereas Day argued that individuals high in self-monitoring, through their greater behavioral flexibility, are more likely to meet others' expectations and be perceived as leaders initially and over time, Bedeian argued that individuals high in self-monitoring would eventually be viewed as inconsistent and untrustworthy because of their behavioral variability. Those low in self-monitoring, through their behavioral consistency, should engender trust and commitment.
Research on managerial behavior and subordinate trust supports Bedeian's argument. Reviews by Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, and Werner (1998) and Simons (2002) discussed behavioral consistency and integrity, with the latter defined as the consistency between espoused and enacted values, as important antecedents of trust in leaders. Based on previous research on self-monitoring and on trust, Simons argued that perceived behavioral integrity should be lower among managers higher in self-monitoring because the variability in their behaviors across situations should lead others to believe that their behaviors do not correspond to what they think...
|
