Diminishing Returns of Leadership Behaviors on Leadership Emergence

Abstract

A large body of evidence has concluded that there are positive linear relationships between leadership behaviors and leadership emergence. Drawing on insights from the leadership and teams research, we hypothesized that above certain levels of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors, such behaviors will have diminishing returns for leadership emergence. Hypotheses were tested using a sample of 105 leaderless teams within an assessment center setting. Our results indicate that team members’ behaviors have linear and non-linear relations with leadership emergence. We discovered that the association between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence in self-managed teams is curvilinear, whereas the association between task-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence is linear but not curvilinear. Overall, the relationships between member behaviors and leadership emergence are more complex than the independent, positive linear relationships observed throughout the literature.

Keywords

leadership emergence task-oriented behaviors relationship-oriented behaviors curvilinear relationships

With the increasing complexity of tasks and requirement for flexibility in today’s business environment, self-managed teams, in which members manage themselves, make task decisions, and solve work-related problems, have received increased attention (Deloitte University Press, 2016). In the absence of formally assigned leaders, members in self-managed teams often emerge as leaders to influence their teams to accomplish shared goals and promote individual and team performance (Taggar, Hackew, & Saha, 1999; Zhang, Waldman, & Wang, 2012). Team effectiveness theory (Hackman, 1987, 2002) suggests that for a team to be effective, it needs to provide enabling conditions that guide team members to coordinate tasks and foster a helpful interpersonal atmosphere. These task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors are particularly important for self-managed teams because when there is no formal leader in a team, individual members are more dependent on each other and need to more frequently interact, communicate, and collaborate to accomplish team goals (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996). Indeed, research has found that individual team members who demonstrate behaviors that coordinate, monitor, and structure team tasks (task-oriented behaviors; e.g., Eby, Cader, & Noble, 2003; Luria & Berson, 2013; Walter, Cole, van der Vegt, Rubin, & Bommer, 2012) or behaviors showing consideration to others (relationship-oriented behaviors; e.g., Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990; Wolff, Pescosolido, & Druskat, 2002) are more welcomed and influential, and more likely to emerge as leaders.

Despite the expectation and evidence that the influences of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence in self-managed teams are linearly positive, the too-much-of-a-good-thing meta-theoretical principle (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) suggests that such influences may be more complex than what is observed throughout the literature. That is, task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors can be desirable leadership behaviors that link to effective team outcomes up to a point. After this inflection point, more task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors do not add additional value to the teamwork and may instead lead to less favorable outcomes (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). As Fleishman (1998) noted, the influences of consideration and structure—types of relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors—on follower outcomes were “clearly curvilinear, not linear, and hyperbolic, not parabolic” (p. 829). Furthermore, empirical research has mainly examined the influence of either task-oriented or relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence, but little research has integrated the two perspectives. If both forms are important for leadership emergence, then only focusing on one but not the other may result in an incomplete understanding of the behavioral antecedents of leadership emergence.

As such, our research aims to contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we depart from the prior linear assumption to suggest that the demonstration of relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors may benefit individual members’ status and influence in self-managed teams; however, in extreme amounts, these behaviors can harm rather than benefit their leadership emergence. We thus enable a deeper understanding of the complexity of the influence of leadership behaviors on leadership emergence. Second, leadership research to date has primarily focused on the independent effects of behaviors on outcomes, giving little attention to the fact that the effects of one behavior are often dependent on the performance of other behaviors (Yukl, 2012). We address this gap by examining the concurrent impacts of the two main behaviors in relation to leadership emergence. Third, the limited research on the potential non-linear influences of leadership behaviors has primarily focused on formally designated leaders’ traits, behaviors, and effectiveness (e.g., Ames & Flynn, 2007; Li, Rubenstein, Lin, Wang, & Chen, 2018). Our research extends this line of research and contributes to the literature of self-managed teams by examining whether these behaviors are desired for informal leadership emergence.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Since the 1950s, scholars have recognized the Ohio State studies as the most extensive research program on effective leadership behaviors (Chemers, 1997). The Ohio State studies identified two effective behavioral categories: initiating structure as a task-oriented behavior and consideration as a relationship-based behavior. In a meta-analysis, Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) found moderately strong, nontrivial relationships with formal leaders’ behaviors and leadership outcomes such as performance and satisfaction. Applying this to leaderless team contexts, task-oriented (e.g., setting goals, planning, structuring, and monitoring work activities) and relationship-oriented behaviors (e.g., providing support and encouragement) are also positively related to leadership emergence (e.g., Eby et al., 2003; Luria & Berson, 2013; Wolff et al., 2002), primarily because they are able to identify and address the most pressing issues facing a team. The role of a task coordinator or a socioemotional supporter conforms to individuals’ implicit theories of leadership (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger, 1986; Lord, Foti, & de Vader, 1984); that is, individuals are perceived by other members to be a leader to the degree that he or she facilitates team activities toward goal accomplishment and alleviates the team’s social concerns (Hollander, 1961).

The traditional assumption as it relates to the association between effective member behaviors and leadership emergence is more is better. In fact, Anderson and Berdahl (2002) noted the following: “Hierarchical positions in groups are often allocated to group members according to their contributions: The more group members provide for the group’s goals, the higher the position they are allocated is” (p. 1373). However, some scholars have argued that the effects of effective leadership behaviors (i.e., task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors) on leadership emergence may be more curvilinear than linear in nature (Fleishman, 1995, 1998). Yukl (2012) provides the specific example of how task-oriented behaviors, such as monitoring the work of others, can come in effective and ineffective forms. Typically, a team member directly monitors individual member activities or examines documents or records of work activities to facilitate progress on team activities. However, when displayed in excessive magnitude, a member’s task monitoring can be seen as too intense or a sign of lacking trust in one’s peers’ work. In such cases, excessive task-oriented behavior can come with reputational or image costs. Accordingly, task-oriented behaviors, such as taking charge of the decision making for the team, setting goals for others, and checking team members’ work time, may initially be perceived as valuable contributions toward team goal accomplishment, but too much may be seen as too controlling in the eyes of teammates. We propose that a moderate amount of task-oriented behavior will create an optimal result for leadership emergence. When members engage in moderate levels of task-oriented behaviors, they help the team move forward, facilitate other members to accomplish their tasks, and promote a better team outcome without appearing too controlling or provoking negative bias.

Similar to task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented behaviors may also come in both effective and ineffective forms (Yukl, 2012). For instance, listening carefully to other members’ feelings and concerns, and asking other members for ideas and suggestions can help individual members gain influence and informal leadership positions in their self-managed teams. However, an excessive amount of relationship-oriented behavior can result in intrusive and unwelcoming behaviors. Overly considerate behavior, such as constantly seeking input from team members who might not be willing to or comfortable of making important decisions for the team, can result in ineffective outcomes and negative evaluations. Therefore, relationship-oriented behaviors, such as seeking input from others in the team, validating ideas, and listening carefully to concerns, may initially be perceived as addressing the primary social concerns of the team, but too much may be seen as a sign of indecisiveness or ineffectiveness. We expect that when members engage in moderate levels of relationship-oriented behaviors, they are most likely to emerge as informal leaders because their behaviors help establish mutual trust and respect with other team members, build team solidarity, and satisfy inter-member relations without appearing passive or provoking negative bias. Thus, we predict the following:

H1a: There is a curvilinear relationship between task-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence, such that this relationship is initially positive but diminishes (inflects) as the level of task-oriented behaviors increases.

H1b: There is a curvilinear relationship between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence, such that this relationship is initially positive but diminishes (inflects) as the level of relationship-oriented behaviors increases.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from 511 undergraduate and MBA students enrolled in management courses across two universities in the Midwest and West of the United States. Of the participants, 54% were men, with ages ranging from 18 to 50 (M = 24.73, SD = 5.33). Participants were members of White (33.8%), Hispanic (35.2%), Asian (18.2%), Black (5%), and other ethnic groups (7.8%). Teams ranged in size from three to six members (M = 4.91, SD = 0.45). Twenty-five teams were comprised of MBA students and 80 teams were comprised of undergraduate business students (N = 105 teams).

Procedures

Participants completed the Iliad Assessment Center (Bommer & Bartels, 1996), a 150-min developmental assessment center, for partial course credit. Participants were randomly assigned to leaderless teams. Participants completed prework (i.e., reading of background material including annual reports) before the start of the assessment center. Upon arrival at the assessment center, participants were assigned to the role of a functional manager in a fictitious company whereby all participants were working at the same hierarchical level in the organization. Participants completed a series of demographic items at the outset of the assessment center.

The assessment center exercises included two 25-minute leaderless team discussions, which were used to assess members’ task-oriented and relationship-oriented behavior and emergent leadership. One exercise required team members to arrive at a consensus on several customer service initiatives to implement within the fictitious organization, while the other exercise required members to make a team recommendation for hiring a senior-level manager. Participants remained on the same team to complete both team exercises and rated team members’ leadership after each exercise. Teams completed exercises in the same order (executive selection discussion before the customer service initiative discussion). This discussion format has been previously used in leadership research (e.g., Walter et al., 2012) and follows a format commonly used in assessment centers in which formal team roles are unassigned. Master’s and doctoral-level industrial/organizational psychology students served as assessors. Assessors observed team video recordings and assessed each participant on task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. We provided assessors with interpretation aides (Lievens, 1998) to assist them in arriving at a consensus score for each behavioral checklist item (Sackett & Wilson, 1982). More specifically, assessors were provided with paragraph-long descriptions of task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors. Assessors received extensive training designed to help them develop a frame of reference for the ratings (Uggerslev & Sulsky, 2008). Assessors were trained on how to identify and assess leadership behaviors using written and video examples. The written examples included key words that are often associated with task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors, whereas video recordings showed prototypical examples of behaviors.

Measures

Task-oriented behaviors

Individual task-oriented behaviors were assessed using a behavioral checklist (Reilly, Henry, & Smither, 1990) by two independent raters based on videotapes of the leaderless exercises. The items on the checklist described the extent to which individual team members directed and organized team tasks toward achieving the goals of the team. Five behaviors in particular were assessed including defining the decision criteria, clarifying team tasks, monitoring time, checking for a common understanding, and documenting the discussion (Walter et al., 2012). Scores ranged from 0 (the behavior was not performed at all) to 2 (the behavior was performed to a great extent). Scores were added to provide a single rating for each participant and then averaged across exercises.

Relationship-oriented behaviors

Similar to task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented behaviors were assessed using a behavioral checklist by two independent assessors. The items on the checklist described the extent to which individuals demonstrated concern and respect for others as well as support for others’ contributions. Three behaviors in particular were assessed including seeking input from team members, validating other team members, and not interrupting others. Scores also ranged from 0 (the behavior was not performed at all) to 2 (the behavior was performed to a great extent) like task-oriented behaviors; however, participants received a negative score (–1) for particular relationship-oriented behaviors that were not helpful for team functioning (i.e., interrupting others, ridiculing others). Scores for relationship-oriented behaviors were first added to provide a single rating for each participant and then averaged across exercises.

Leadership emergence

We used peer-ratings to assess team members’ emergence as a leader. We used Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone’s (2007) single-item measure: “To what extent did you rely on [insert participant ID] for leadership?” Participants wore ID badges to help team members make accurate ratings of others. Team members’ ratings of other members were fairly reliable and similar—ICC(1) = .31, ICC(2) = .65, median r_wg using a uniform and slightly skewed distribution = .88 and .81. This measure was selected because it conceptualizes leader emergence as a continuous variable rather than a discrete phenomenon. Leadership emergence scores were averaged across the two exercises for each participant.¹

Control variables

Also, considering that data were collected from two different universities and participants from those universities differed in their level of education (undergraduate students or graduate students), we controlled for the student sample. Students from both universities followed the exact same procedures and completed the same assessment center exercises in the same order. However, a dummy variable was created to capture the distinction between students (undergraduate students from University 1 = 0; MBA students from University 2 = 1). We also accounted for participant gender (Eagly & Karau, 1991) and the fact that teams varied in size.

Analytical Strategy

Considering that participants were nested within teams, we used multilevel modeling in SAS 9.4 to test study hypotheses (hierarchical linear modeling (HLM); Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001). We grand-mean centered all continuous Level 1 and Level 2 variables (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) and used the centered variables as the basis to create our quadratic and interaction terms. We first ran a null random-intercept model to assess the degree of between-group variability in leadership emergence, $τ^{2}$ = 0.06, SE = 0.02, ICC(1) = .18, p < .001. Next, to examine the effects of control variables on leadership emergence, we ran a model that only included covariates (i.e., team size, student sample, gender). Subsequently, to examine the curvilinear effects of leadership behaviors on leadership emergence, we ran a model that included the linear and quadratic terms for both task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors. We calculated a pseudo-R² value to better understand the variance explained by each model (Snijders & Bosker, 1999). Moderation was determined by calculating inflection points (Weisberg, 2005): –linear estimate/2 × quadratic estimate.

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among the study variables. H1a and H1b predicted that the relationships between leadership behaviors (i.e., task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors) and leadership emergence would exhibit patterns of diminishing returns. In particular, we expected team members to suffer diminishing returns in terms of leadership emergence as leadership behaviors were performed at extremely high levels. As indicated in Table 2, when the curvilinear effects of both leadership behaviors were included in the same model, results suggest that a curvilinear relationship exists between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence (γ = −0.12, p < .001), but not task-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence (γ = −0.01, ns). Figure 1 shows the form of the curvilinear effects of relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence. The relationship between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence shows a positive, concave downward curve, which supports a diminishing returns model (Aiken & West, 1991). The inflection point was .88 SD above the mean of relationship-oriented behaviors. Thus, our results provide support for H1b not H1a.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables.

Variable		M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1	Gender	0.54	0.54	—
2	Team size	4.91	0.45	.01	—
3	Student sample	0.22	0.42	.05	−.32 **	—
4	Task-oriented behaviors	1.75	1.05	.15 ***	−.01	.19 ***	—
5	Relationship-oriented behaviors	1.34	0.87	.13 **	.02	.14 **	.59 ***	—
6	Leadership emergence	4.22	0.59	.12 **	–.09 *	.04	.33 ***	.35 ***	—

Note. N = 507.

Student sample: 0 = undergraduates at University 1, 1 = MBA students at University 2.

Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.

*Correlations greater than or equal to |.09|, p < .05; **Correlations greater than or equal to |.12|, p < .01; ***Correlations greater than or equal to |.15|, p < .001 (two-tailed).

Table 2.

Results of Curvilinear Effects of Leadership Behaviors.

Variable	Model 1			Model 2
Variable	γ	SE	Pseudo-R²	γ	SE	Pseudo-R²
			.02			.17
Intercept	4.14***	0.05		4.33***	0.06
Gender	0.15**	0.05		0.06	0.04
Team size	−0.12	0.08		−0.19*	0.08
Student sample	0.00	0.09		−0.18^†	0.10
Task-oriented behaviors				0.17***	0.03
Relationship-oriented behaviors				0.21***	0.03
Task-oriented behaviors (quadratic)				−0.01	0.02
Relationship-oriented behaviors (quadratic)				−0.12***	0.03

Note. N = 507 at Level 1. N = 105 at Level 2. Entries are estimates of fixed effects with robust standard errors.

Student sample: 0 = undergraduates at University 1, 1 = MBA students at University 2.

Gender: 0 =female, 1 = male.

†

p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Diminishing returns of relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence.

Discussion

Our findings extend existing theory and establish an agenda for future leadership research on self-managed teams. Indeed, our results further support the notion that the associations between relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors and leadership emergence are positive and linear. However, as noted by Judge and colleagues (2004), the field of leadership has largely ignored potential nonlinearities in the validity of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors. We theorized and provided empirical support for a diminishing returns model of relationship-oriented behaviors in self-managed teams. Our results confirm Judge and colleagues’ (2004) belief that “linear and nonlinear effects can coexist” (p. 46). Specifically, our results suggest that relationship-oriented behaviors are beneficial up to a certain point (i.e., the point of inflection was .88 SD above the mean of relationship-oriented behaviors), but excessive behavior may result in negative bias of a team member’s leadership ratings. Stated differently, relationship-oriented behaviors can be either assets or liabilities for leadership emergence, depending on the degree to which such behaviors are performed. Thus, we offer a more balanced perspective that recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses of leadership behaviors in self-managed teams and answer calls for research that examines when specific behaviors are over- and under-utilized (Judge et al., 2004; Yukl, 2012).

Unexpectedly, we do not find the influence of task-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence to be curvilinear. The main, linear impact of task-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence was significantly positive, which was consistent with prior research findings (e.g., Walter et al., 2012; Wolff et al., 2002). The results imply that the curvilinear effects of relationship-oriented behaviors appear to be much more potent than the curvilinear effects of task-oriented behaviors in self-managed teams. Judge and colleagues (2004) observed similar findings in that meta-analytic correlations of relationship-oriented behaviors demonstrated stronger relationships with subjective criteria (e.g., leadership perceptions) than task-oriented behaviors. Given that relationship-oriented behaviors are likely to engender mutual feelings of trust and respect more so than task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented behaviors are more likely to have a stronger influence on leadership perceptions. This also is consistent with the notion that interpersonal factors (e.g., warmth) tend to influence personal perceptions faster than task-related factors (e.g., competence) in temporary team settings (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011). However, we encourage future research to replicate our findings on the concurrent impacts of relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence.

Practical Implications

Research has demonstrated that informal leaders can have a significant impact on individual and team performance (Taggar et al., 1999; Zhang et al., 2012). Our findings suggest that team members should be mindful of the fact that they can overutilize and underutilize behaviors that are critical for leadership emergence. More specifically, intermediate levels of relationship-oriented behaviors by team members, as opposed to high levels, are most likely to be beneficial for attaining informal leadership status. Managers in organizations can use such information to help team members course correct when behaviors are out of balance.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the design of the current study highlights several strengths of this research such as using data collected from different sources (peers and trained assessors) and via different methods (survey and video records), it is important to recognize its limitations, which points to fruitful future directions. First, considering the study sample, we acknowledge that our findings may not apply to all types of self-managing teams. Future research should consider examining the curvilinear effects of leadership behaviors in various types of self-managing teams (e.g., manufacturing vs. consulting teams). Notwithstanding, assessment centers offer high-fidelity contexts for examining leadership behaviors (Thornton & Cleveland, 1990). Second, by proposing an optimal midrange for task-oriented behaviors and relationship-oriented behaviors as it relates to leadership emergence, our research calls into question our understanding of situationally appropriate levels of leadership behaviors for leader emergence. Future investigations should examine how team members adapt their leadership behaviors to changing circumstances (Yukl, 2012) and determine the importance of behavioral flexibility for leadership emergence. Third, although we intently focused on the curvilinear effects of task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors, leadership also contains other categories of behaviors (e.g., change-oriented behaviors). We encourage researchers to examine the curvilinear effects of other categories of leadership behaviors on leadership emergence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tyree David Mitchell

Notes

Author Biographies

Tyree David Mitchell is an assistant professor in the School of Leadership & Human Resource Development at Louisiana State University, USA. He holds a PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from DePaul University. His research primarily focuses on understanding leadership, team and group dynamics, and negotiations.

Jasmine Hu is an associate professor of management at the Fisher College of Business, the Ohio State University, USA. She received her PhD with concentrations in organizational behavior and human resource management from University of Illinois at Chicago. Her primary research interests focus on understanding prosocial leadership and teams.

Lars Johnson is an assistant professor of industrial and organizational psychology at Wayne State University, USA. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of Houston and his research interests include leadership, stressor–strain relationships, and diversity plus inclusion.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ames

D. R.

Flynn

F. J.

(2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-324. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307

Anderson

Berdahl

J. L.

(2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362

Bommer

W. H.

Bartels

L. K.

(1996). The Iliad assessment center. Bloomington, IN: Tichenor.

Carson

J. B.

Tesluk

P. E.

Marrone

J. A.

(2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

Chemers

M. M.

(1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen

S. G.

Ledford

G. E.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676. doi:10.1177/001872679604900506

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

Beninger

(2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73-98. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004

Deloitte University Press. (2016). Global human capital trends 2016: The new organization: Different by design. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/HumanCapital/gx-dup-global-human-capital-trends-2016.pdf

10.

Dobbins

G. H.

Long

W. S.

Dedrick

E. J.

Clemons

T. C.

(1990). The role of self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study. Journal of Management, 16, 609-618. doi:10.1177/014920639001600306

11.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685

12.

Eby

L. T.

Cader

Noble

C. L.

(2003). Why do high self-monitors emerge as leaders in small groups? A comparative analysis of the behaviors of high versus low self-monitors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1457-1479. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01958.x

13.

Fleishman

E. A.

(1995). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership research. In Dansereau

Yammarino

F. J.

(Eds.), Leadership: The multiple-level approaches (pp. 51-60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

14.

Fleishman

E. A.

(1998). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee grievances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel Psychology, 51, 825-834. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00740.x

15.

Hackman

J. R.

(1987). The design of work teams. In Lorsch

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

Hackman

J. R.

(2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

17.

Hofmann

D. A.

Gavin

M. B.

(1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623-641. doi:10.1177/014920639802400504

18.

Hollander

E. P.

(1961). Emergent leadership and social influence. In Petrullo

Bass

(Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior (pp. 30-47). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

19.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Ilies

(2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36

20.

Rubenstein

A. L.

Lin

Wang

Chen

(2018). The curvilinear effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: The mediating role of team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Personnel Psychology, 71, 369-397. doi:10.1111/peps.12264

21.

Lievens

(1998). Factors which improve the construct validity of assessment centers: A review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 141-152. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00085

22.

Lord

R. G.

de Vader

C. L.

Alliger

G. M.

(1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402

23.

Lord

R. G.

Foti

R. J.

de Vader

C. L.

(1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6

24.

Luria

Berson

(2013). How do leadership motives affect informal and formal leadership emergence? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 995-1015. doi:10.1002/job.1836

25.

Pierce

J. R.

Aguinis

(2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313-338. doi:10.1177/0149206311410060

26.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

27.

Reilly

R. R.

Henry

Smither

J. W.

(1990). An examination of the effects of using behavior checklists on the construct validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 43, 71-84. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.tb02006.x

28.

Sackett

P. R.

Wilson

M. A.

(1982). Factors affecting the consensus judgment process in managerial assessment centers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 10-17. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.1.10

29.

Snijders

T. A. B.

Bosker

(1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: SAGE.

30.

Taggar

Hackew

Saha

(1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899-926. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00184.x

31.

Thornton

G. C.

Cleveland

J. N.

(1990). Developing managerial talent through simulation. American Psychologist, 45, 190-199. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.190

32.

Uggerslev

K. L.

Sulsky

L. M.

(2008). Using frame-of-reference training to understand the implications of rater idiosyncrasy for rating accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 711-719. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.711

33.

Walter

Cole

M. S.

van der Vegt

G. S.

Rubin

R. S.

Bommer

W. H.

(2012). Emotion recognition and emergent leadership: Unraveling mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 977-991. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.06.007

34.

Weisberg

(2005). Applied linear regression (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

35.

Wolff

S. B.

Pescosolido

A. T.

Druskat

V. U.

(2002). Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 505-522. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00141-8

36.

Yukl

(2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66-85. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088

37.

Zhang

Waldman

D. A.

Wang

(2012). A multilevel investigation of leader–member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 49-78. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.x