Big Five Personality Factors and Leader Emergence in Virtual Teams

Abstract

Using a sample of 243 undergraduate business students assigned to 71 virtual teams, this study explored the relationships between the Big Five personality factors, leader emergence, team trustworthiness, peer rated member performance contributions, and team performance. As predicted, agreeableness and conscientiousness were positively related to the task- and social-oriented dimensions of leader emergence, respectively. Contrary to expectations, emotional stability was not related to either dimension of leadership emergence. Evidence of the predicted relationships between emergent leadership and peer ratings of member contributions to team performance was obtained for task- but not social-oriented behaviors. At the team level, aggregated social-oriented leadership behaviors predicted aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness. Only aggregated task-oriented emergent leadership behaviors predicted virtual team performance.

Keywords

virtual teams Big Five personality emergent leadership team trustworthiness

As virtual teams have become a pervasive element of modern work, research into the factors that impact team performance in virtual settings has grown exponentially (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Gurau, 2011; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004). Despite such scrutiny, our understanding of how individual attributes and emergent team processes, including leadership, combine to influence virtual team outcomes, remains underdeveloped (Hertel, Geister, & Konradt, 2005; Ocker, Huang, Benbunan-Fich, & Hiltz, 2011). Indeed, Hambley, O’Neill, & Kline (2007, p. 2) note that “[a]lthough some research on virtual leadership styles is emerging, there is still a need for research assessing how certain leadership styles interact with communication technologies to affect team processes and outcomes.”

Leader emergence is defined “as both an individual’s completion of leader-like work duties and occupying positions of leadership or authority either within or outside of the work domain. Leader emergence, rather than effectiveness, is often a product of others’ perceptions of an individual’s abilities. If the target individual is perceived to be ‘leader-like,’ then others will be more likely to elect or appoint the target individual into leadership positions (i.e., leader emergence, Reichard et al., 2011, p. 472). We believe one of the oldest perspectives on leadership—the trait approach—is also one the most promising for enhancing our understanding of leader emergence within virtual team settings.

While the universal perspective on traits fell out of favor following a highly influential critical review by Stogdill (1948), the focus on individual differences and leadership has shown a marked resurgence from the 1980s onward (Zaccaro, 2007). Bono and Judge (2004) found that 12% of the articles on leadership since 1990 included the keywords personality and leadership (p. 901). Studies reveal a moderate relationship between personality traits and leader emergence (Ilies, Gerhardt, & Le, 2004) despite inconsistent assessment of personality (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Judge, Bono and Big Five colleagues (2002a) classified the extant research on personality as it relates to leadership using the Five Factor model of personality traits (i.e., the Big Five; Barrick & Mount, 1991), coming up with much stronger evidence in support of the relationship.

Although the impact of Stogdill’s (1948) critique suggested otherwise, he did not argue for the cessation of trait research into leadership. Instead, he stressed the need for an integrated approach to leadership research that accounts for both the situation and the leader’s individual differences. The purpose of our study derives from Stogdill’s suggestion and was driven by a gap in the literature with regard to leader emergence, personality, and virtual teams.

While there is a burgeoning literature on leadership in virtual teams (Balthazard, Waldman, & Warren, 2009; Carte, Chidambaram, & Becker, 2006; Ocker et al., 2011; Purvanova & Bono, 2009; Shuffler, Wiese, Salas, & Burke, 2010) and a separate developing research stream on leader emergence and personality (Bono & Judge, 2004; Ilies et al., 2004; Judge, Bono et al., 2002; Reichard et al., 2011), there are no studies that explore whether the Big Five factors influence leader emergence in virtual teams and the implications for performance. Our study addresses this knowledge gap in three ways. First, we examine an integrated input-process-output (I-P-O) model of leader emergence within virtual teams. That is, we model the Big Five factors as antecedents (inputs) to leader emergence within virtual teams and leader emergence as a team process that relates to team and individual performance. Prior virtual team research has examined antecedents of leadership (e.g., Balthazard et al., 2009) or the impact leadership has upon team performance (e.g., Ocker et al., 2011; Purvanova & Bono, 2009) but not an integrated IPO model. Second, we examine the extent to which the relationship between leadership emergence and team performance is moderated by team trustworthiness. Lack of trust is common within virtual teams due to diminished communication relative to face-to-face settings (DeRosa, Hantula, Kock, & D’Arcy, 2004). While trust is a common topic in virtual team studies (e.g., Jarvenpaa, Shaw, & Stapes, 2004), the role of leadership emergence in creating perceptions of member trustworthiness is under explored. Third, we advance a rationale as to how each of the Big Five factors relate to leadership emergence within virtual settings. Prior studies of the Big Five factors (Balthazard et al., 2009) have not considered how all five potentially relate to leadership emergence in virtual teams. Since team members exhibit all of the Big Five factors to varying degrees it is important to examine how each one relates to leader emergence within virtual teams.

Theoretical Foundations

Leader Emergence and Virtual Teams

Given the complexity of today’s uncertain, global environments, work is often carried out by team members dispersed across time and space who interact only through computer-mediated communication (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Hertel et al., 2005). We refer to such teams as virtual teams, defined as “teams whose members use technology to varying degrees in working across locational, temporal, and relational boundaries to accomplish an interdependent task” (Martins et al., 2004, p. 808; italics in the original). In general, research shows two types of leadership functions necessary for virtual team functioning (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002): (a) developing and shaping team processes; and (b) monitoring and managing team performance. These distinctions are mirrored in much of the leadership research. Notable examples include consideration and initiating structure (e.g., Fleishman, 1973), supportive and directive leadership (e.g., House, 1971), and transformational and transactional leadership (e.g., Bass, 1985). A meta-analysis conducted by Judge, Piccolo, and Ilies (2004) that examined the relationships between consideration, initiating structure, and key work outcomes confirmed that both dimensions of leadership are positively related to job performance and group-organization performance.

Unfortunately, empirical research on virtual team leadership emergence is scarce. Several studies have focused primarily on exploring transformational leadership (e.g., Balthazard et al., 2009; Hambley et al., 2007; Purvanova & Bono, 2009), while others have looked at more generalized leadership behaviors (e.g., Flammia, Cleary, & Slattery, 2010; Ocker et al., 2011; Wakefield, Leidner, & Garrison, 2008). Only a handful of studies focused on the task- and social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership and their relationships with team outcomes within a virtual setting (Carte et al., 2006; Tyran, Tyran, & Shepherd, 2003; Yoo & Alavi, 2004).

Research Framework

The Virtual Team Competency Inventory (VTCI) advanced by Hertel and associates (2005) provided the conceptual foundations for our research. The VCTI model identifies individual member variables, including personality (e.g., conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability), which reflect teamwork-related and taskwork-related member attributes. Together, these attributes, along with member cognitive abilities, professional/technical knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), and attributes relevant to telecooperation (e.g., cooperation within a virtual setting), are posited to predict the criterion variables of potential and actual team performance.

Drawing on this framework, the model that guided the current research was developed (see Figure 1). Conscientiousness and emotional stability constitute taskwork-related attributes that are posited to be positively related to task-oriented emergent leadership, whereas agreeableness and emotional stability are teamwork-related attributes that are expected to foster social-oriented emergent leadership. Task- and social-oriented emergent leadership, in turn, are posited to relate to individual member contributions to team performance (as reflected by peer assessments). At the team level, both task- and social-oriented emergent leadership are expected to relate positively to aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness and team performance. Team trustworthiness is also predicted to partially mediate the relationships between the emergent leadership behaviors and virtual team performance. Finally, consistent with the VTCI model, we expect that team member cognitive abilities (grade point average [GPA], class rank), professional/technical KSAs (computer self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, work experience), and attributes relevant to telecooperation (positive and negative attitudes toward computers, propensity to trust) may be related to the focal individual and team performance outcomes. Accordingly, the utility of including these constructs as control variables is assessed.

Figure 1.

A model of the antecedents and outcomes of emergent leadership within virtual teams

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Leader Emergence and Personality

While earlier studies used a variety of personality conceptualizations, recent literature on leadership emergence and personality builds on the Big Five model (Judge, Bono et al., 2002; Reichard et al., 2011). The most comprehensive meta-analysis to date showed that the Big Five traits as a set were correlated significantly with leadership (r = .48), and all but agreeableness correlated specifically with leader emergence (Judge, Bono et al., 2002). In the next sections, the relationships of each of the Big Five traits with leadership are discussed. At the end of each section, we indicate if the trait is expected to relate to leader emergence in virtual teams, and if so, advance hypotheses. As in prior research (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002), leader emergence varies along two dimensions: (a) leader communication oriented toward the team task (i.e., task-oriented emergent leadership); and (b) leader communication oriented toward members’ social needs (i.e., social-oriented emergent leadership), and the hypotheses are worded accordingly.

Extraversion

Persons scoring high on extraversion are talkative, active, upbeat, and seek excitement and social affiliation (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The latter quality is important in face-to-face team settings, as extraversion is related to a desire to work with others and reflects social skills that facilitate effective interactions with teammates (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Extraversion has been positively related to transformational leadership (e.g., Balthazard et al., 2009; Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000; Lim & Ployhart, 2004) and in some cases was the strongest of all five factors in predicting leadership (e.g., Judge, Bono et al., 2002) and leader emergence (e.g., Ilies et al., 2004). Indeed, a longitudinal study by Reichard and colleagues (2011) revealed that adolescent extraversion accounted for significant variance in adult workplace leader emergence and transformational leadership beyond that explained by adolescent intelligence.

Since persons high on extraversion are outgoing, they may be less likely to emerge as team leaders when face-to-face contact is limited because they find the use of asynchronous communication to coordinate team activities impersonal. Consistent with this notion, Balthazard et al. (2009) found that extraversion was related to transformational leadership in face-to-face but not virtual teams. Moreover, given the inner-orientation of persons high on introversion, they too are not expected to emerge as leaders within a virtual context. Accordingly, extraversion is not expected to predict either task- or socially-oriented leadership within virtual teams.

Agreeableness

Persons high on agreeableness tend toward affiliation, compassion, and cooperation rather than conflict and are both trusting and trustworthy (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Agreeableness arises as a key trait within teams where collaboration is required (Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 1995). Further, more agreeable persons focus on cooperation rather than competition within teams (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). Although leader agreeableness has been positively related to satisfaction with supervision (Smith & Canger, 2004) and team performance (Lim & Ployhart, 2004), the link to leadership emergence is inconclusive. In Judge, Bono et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis, agreeableness obtained the weakest relationship to leadership of the Big Five traits, presumably because it reflects passivity and compliance. Similarly, Reichard et al. (2011) found that agreeableness was unrelated to adult leader emergence.

In contrast to the research on leadership in general, several studies have found positive and strong relationships of agreeableness with transformational leadership (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000; Lim & Ployhart, 2004). Bono and Judge (2004) offer several explanations for the positive relationship they identified. First, leaders high on agreeableness tend to be concerned with others’ well-being and developmental needs (individualized consideration). Second, because of their trustworthiness, they may be seen as role models and score high in idealized influence. Finally, because of their needs for affiliation and cooperation, they tend to be readily available to followers (and thus score low on laissez-faire leadership).

The qualities associated with agreeableness (cooperation, trust, kindness, and altruism) seem to retain their importance within a virtual workplace. In fact, it may be more important for members to be forgiving and trusting within a virtual than a traditional team. Meyerson, Weick and Kramer (1996) coined the term swift trust to relate to temporary teams whose members share a common purpose and task that is bounded by a finite time frame. It reflects a willingness to suspend doubt about other members and maintain a positive attitude about group outcomes. Pauleen (2004) found that leaders of virtual teams emphasized the importance of taking time to build trust within their teams early on. Similarly, Tyran and associates (2003) found that the emergent leaders in virtual teams were more likely than other members to be rated high on trust by teammates. Hence, the tendency of persons high on agreeableness to both extend and engender trust (Costa & McCrae, 1992) suggests that agreeableness is a key predictor of emergent leadership. However, the facets of agreeableness discussed above, including trust, seem to be more directly connected to social- rather than task-oriented leadership (and are thus more in line with the established relationship of agreeableness with transformational leadership).

H1: Agreeableness will be positively related to the social-oriented aspects of leader emergence within virtual teams.

Conscientiousness

Persons high on conscientiousness exhibit caution, self-discipline, hard work, and a strong sense of direction (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Meta-analyses show that conscientiousness is positively related to activities which support the social and psychological environment of a team and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and thus should be related to leader effectiveness (Judge, Bono et al., 2002). Consistent with this reasoning, leader conscientiousness has been positively related to team performance (Kickul & Neuman, 2000). Judge, Bono et al. (2002) found it to be positively related to leadership and the second strongest Big Five factor (next to extraversion) to predict leader emergence in their meta-analysis. However, it was not a strong predictor of transformational leadership, although Bono and Judge (2004) broke out the subdimensions and found a stronger relationship for individualized consideration alone than transformational leadership as a composite. They argued that there is no reason to expect conscientiousness to be related to the visionary, enthusiastic, or creative behaviors shown by transformational leaders. However, they did provide theory for why conscientiousness would be related to the transactional leadership factor of management by exception-active.

Conscientiousness may be even more important in virtual environments than in traditional ones. The organized, efficient, and planful nature of persons high on conscientiousness allows them to create the precise and complete objectives and procedures needed within virtual teams (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). The reliable and thorough behaviors of those high in conscientiousness are also likely to cause them to persist even when encountering technological difficulties, increasing the likelihood of their emergence as a leader in virtual team settings where technology provides the only means of communication. While Judge, Bono et al (2002) found a positive relationship between leader emergence and conscientiousness, Reichard and colleagues (2011) found no evidence of such a relationship, after controlling for adolescent intelligence. Nevertheless, we predict a positive relationship between conscientiousness and the emergent task-related behaviors that encompass providing direction and setting goals for team members. Because members high on conscientiousness are focused on goal achievement, they are expected to exert task-directed influence over other members as necessary to ensure task completion. However, this may be done with disregard for the feelings or desires of individual team members. While such behaviors have been shown to increase performance, they also decrease affective commitment (Smith & Canger, 2004). Overall, these findings suggest that conscientiousness will be related to the task-oriented, but not the social-oriented, aspects of leader emergence in virtual teams.

H2: Conscientiousness will be positively related to task-oriented aspects of leader emergence within virtual teams.

Emotional stability

Individuals low on emotional stability (also called adjustment or negatively scaled as neuroticism) experience negative feelings such as anger, anxiety, guilt, sadness, and vulnerability (McCrae & Costa, 2008). This trait has been positively and strongly associated with high self-esteem and general self-efficacy (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2000) as well as job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). With self-confidence as a precursor to leader emergence (Judge, Bono et al., 2002), it follows that persons high versus low on emotional stability would be more likely to be perceived as leaders. In contrast, leaders low on emotional stability are viewed as anxious, self-pitying, tense, touchy, and unstable (McCrae & John, 1992).

The emotional stability trait has yielded mixed findings with leadership emergence, however. Judge, Bono et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis found low emotional stability to be negatively related to leader emergence. While Lord, DeVader, and Alliger’s (1986) meta-analysis revealed a corrected correlation of .24 between emotional stability and perceived leadership, the estimate could not be distinguished from zero. Judge and Bono (2000) found the relationship of emotional stability with transformational leadership to be insignificant, but then found meta-analytically that it did hold (Bono & Judge, 2004). Lim and Ployhart (2004) reported a positive relationship of transformational leadership with emotional stability in a military setting. Reichard et al. (2011) found that adolescent emotional stability was unrelated to adult leadership emergence or transformational leadership, when controlling for adolescent intelligence.

Consistent with prior research (e.g., Ilies et al., 2004; Judge, Bono et al., 2002; Lim & Ployhart, 2004) that has identified a positive relationship between emotional stability and leader emergence, we predict that more versus less emotionally stable persons will be more likely to emerge as leaders in virtual settings. Since the lack of face-to-face interactions within virtual teams can increase the chances of miscommunication (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007; Pauleen, 2004), it is important for members to effectively interpret messages and monitor their responses accordingly. The touchy behaviors of less emotionally stable members make them susceptible to misinterpretations of electronic communication, and such misperceptions are likely to inhibit their emergence as leaders. Thus, the characteristics that make low emotional stability a barrier to leader emergence within traditional settings are likewise expected to be operative within virtual settings. In contrast, we expect the calm and stable demeanor of emotionally stable persons to promote task- and social-oriented behaviors and facilitate their emergence as leaders.

H3: Emotional stability will be positively related to (a) task-oriented and (b) social-oriented aspects of leader emergence within virtual teams.

Openness to experience

Persons high in openness to experience are imaginative, curious, and creative (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Judge, Bono et al. (2002, p. 773) described this factor as “the most controversial and least understood.” Openness to experience is not commonly related to organizational outcomes but is related to leadership (Judge, Bono et al., 2002a). It has been positively related to the three transformational leadership dimensions as a set (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000) and leader emergence (Judge, Bono et al., 2002a).

Working in a virtual environment often calls for creativity in solving communication problems and other issues that may not exist in traditional settings (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007). The imaginative nature of persons who are high in openness to experience could prove to be very valuable within virtual teams, but we have no theory on how this factor would be related to leader emergence. Moreover, empirical research suggests a different picture. While Bono and Judge (2004) found that a composite of transformational leadership was positively related to the leader’s openness to experience, the individual dimensions (intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and charisma) were not. This pattern was mirrored for the more task-oriented transactional leader behaviors (contingent reward, management by exception-active and passive). Finally, Reichard et al. (2011) found that adolescent openness to experience was unrelated to adult leadership emergence and transformational leadership, when controlling for adolescent intelligence. Thus, available theory and research is not sufficient to justify predicting relationships of either task- or social-oriented leader emergence with openness to experience.

Leader Emergence and Perceptions of Team Trustworthiness

In the VCTI model, Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski (2004, p. 8) view interpersonal trust as a basic component of team members’ motivational processes, which they define as “an expectancy of members that their efforts will be reciprocated and not exploited by other team members.” In our article, the focus is on member perceptions of the trustworthiness of other team members, which is related to, but conceptually distinct from trust (Frazier, Johnson, Gavin, Gooty, & Snow, 2010). While trust reflects an intention to make oneself vulnerable to another, trustworthiness involves a character-based assessment of the extent to which another party is worthy of one’s trust. We posit that, at the team level, task-oriented aspects of emergent leadership will elevate members’ perceptions of team trustworthiness by reassuring them that peers care about the task. Furthermore, the social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership are expected to foster heightened perceptions of team trustworthiness because they demonstrate a concern among peers for the personal well-being of other members and the overall emotional health of the team.

These predictions are based, in part, on the shared leadership literature (Pearce & Conger, 2002), which suggests that the dispersion of leadership responsibilities and activities within a team can foster higher perceptions of trust and trustworthiness (Avolio, Jung, Murry, & Sivasbramaniam, 1996). Moreover, Shuffler et al. (2010) posit that shared as opposed to traditional hierarchical leadership will serve to enhance the social climate (which reflects perceptions of team trustworthiness) and performance of virtual teams. Accordingly, we predict that when teams have sufficient levels of task- and social-oriented leadership behaviors in the aggregate, members will consider their teammates to be trustworthy. This assertion is supported by the extensive literature that demonstrates effective leadership elicits greater trust among members (Burke, Sims, Lazzara, & Salas, 2007), including members of virtual teams (Hertel et al., 2004; Peters & Karren, 2009; Tyran et al., 2003).

H4: Aggregate levels of (a) task-oriented and (b) social-oriented leadership emergence within virtual teams will be positively related to aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness.

Performance Outcomes

As Figure 1 indicates, both individual and team level performance outcomes are included in our research model. At the individual level, the model builds upon Hertel et al.’s (2004) assertion that the taskwork and teamwork attributes of team members will enhance their performance contributions to the team. Note that this assertion is consistent with extensive leadership research that documents task- and social-oriented leadership behaviors are viewed as valuable contributions to team performance by other members (Fleishman, 1973; Judge et al., 2004). Hence, we view the task-oriented aspects of emergent leadership (e.g., goal setting, providing direction, exerting influence) as behaviors that contribute to the attainment of team goals, and expect other members to recognize these contributions. The social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership (e.g., providing praise, showing empathy) likewise represent potential contributions to team performance and other members are expected to recognize them as such.

H5: The (a) task-oriented and (b) social-oriented aspects of leadership emergence within virtual teams will be positively related to peer ratings of member performance contributions.

At the team level, we again build upon the VTCI model which includes team performance as the ultimate outcome. In doing so, both the VCTI and current models draw from the team leadership (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2006) and virtual team (Hambley et al., 2007; Shuffler et al., 2010; Tyran et al., 2003; Wakefield et al., 2008) literatures which identify leadership as a key determinant of team performance. In addition, the shared leadership literature suggests the dispersion of leadership responsibilities and activities among members will foster higher levels of collective performance (Avolio et al., 1996; Pearce & Conger, 2002; Shuffler et al., 2010). Thus, virtual teams that collectively exhibit higher levels of task-oriented leadership are expected to achieve higher levels of performance. Furthermore, virtual teams that collectively display higher levels of social-oriented leadership are more likely to foster a healthy social climate that promotes effective team functioning (Shuffler et al., 2010).

H6: Aggregate levels of (a) task-oriented and (b) social-oriented aspects of leadership emergence within virtual teams will be positively related to virtual team performance.

“Perhaps the most frequently mentioned precondition of successful virtual teams in the literature is the development of mutual trust within the team because opportunities for mutual control are reduced as virtuality increases” (Hertel, Konradt, & Voss, 2006, p. 482). As such, we anticipate that aggregate levels of perceived team trustworthiness will be positively related to team performance. Once again, this assertion is consistent with the shared leadership literature which postulates that the elevated levels of trust that arise from the diffusion of leadership roles enhance team performance (Avolio et al., 1996). Support within the virtual team literature documents the importance of mutual trust to team effectiveness (e.g., Jarvenpaa, Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Jarvenpaa et al., 2004; Peters & Karren, 2009).

H7: Aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness will be positively related to virtual team performance.

Method

Participants

Participants were 328 undergraduate business students from a large public southwestern university involved in a 12-week virtual team project as a course assignment. One advantage of our use of student project teams is that doing so facilitated the collection of data on both team processes (emergent leadership, team trustworthiness) and outcomes (member performance contribution, team performance). Team members were enrolled in four upper division sections of three different management courses. Students from the various sections were randomly selected and matched with students from other sections to form teams. Formal team leaders were not assigned. Of the students’ overall course grade, 10% was determined by this team project.

Participation in the surveys was voluntary, and students were given nominal extra credit for participating. The written and verbal instructions emphasized the importance of answering truthfully. Survey 1 was completed at Time 1 by 282 participants for a response rate of 85.9%. However, due to attrition over subsequent surveys and listwise deletion of missing values, complete data were obtained from 243 respondents for an effective response rate of 74.1%. Note that this constitutes a higher than average response rate for organizational research (Baruch & Holtom, 2008). Two hundred and twenty-two subjects reported their age and gender. Of those, the average age was 22.6 years (SD = 3.82) and 55.2% were male. Two hundred forty-two subjects responded about their current work status, and of those, 58.7% indicated they were employed at the time of survey administration. Of the 241 students reporting on race, 66.4% were White, 12.9% were Asian, 7.1% were Black, 6.6% were Hispanic, and 5.0% Native American; the remaining 2% classified themselves as “other.”

Procedure

Seventy-one virtual teams were formed with 3 to 5 members (average team size was 4.5 members). The project task involved a written case analysis of a fictitious organization facing an ethical challenge. Participants completed the project via an electronic communication tool (Blackboard), which allowed threaded discussion groups, email, online chats, and document sharing. While it was possible for team members to communicate via other media, they were given explicit instructions that all team communications were to be made through electronic media only. Team interactions were captured from the various means of communication during the project (6,327 communications in total). An examination of text of their electronic communications revealed no references to outside communications using other media.

A longitudinal, multisource design was used for data collection. At Time 1 (the beginning of the semester), basic demographic data (gender, age, race), indicators of cognitive ability (GPA, class rank) and measures of professional/technical KSAs (academic and computer self-efficacy, work experience) and telecooperation (attitudes toward computers, propensity to trust) were assessed. At Time 2, approximately eight weeks later, the personality measures were collected. Approximately six weeks later, at Time 3 (toward the end of the semester but prior to the completion of the team project and peer appraisals), the measure of team trustworthiness was administered. At Time 4 (the end of the semester), the team project was turned in along with peer appraisals. Team electronic communications were exchanged and captured throughout the 12-week project; a trained coder assessed these communications following the completion of the semester. Thus, self-report (demographics, personality, cognitive ability, KSA’s, attributes relevant to telecooperation), archival (team communications), other team members (peer appraisals), and instructor (team project grades) sources of data were all employed in this study.

Measures

Personality

The 60-item revised NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) was used to measure the Big Five traits. Twelve items are included for each dimension and are counterbalanced to control for acquiescence effects. Sample items include: “I try to be courteous to everyone I meet” (agreeableness); “I laugh easily” (extraversion); “I often feel inferior to others” (neuroticism); “I often try new and foreign foods” (openness to experience); and “I try to perform all of the tasks assigned to me conscientiously” (conscientiousness). The scales employ 5-point Likert-type response formats (strongly disagree = 1; strongly agree = 5). Prior estimates of internal consistency were .68 (agreeableness), .77 (extraversion), .86 (neuroticism), .73 (openness to experience), and .81 (conscientiousness; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Our coefficient alpha internal consistency estimates were consistent with previous research: .77 (agreeableness), .82 (extraversion), .84 (neuroticism), .71 (openness to experience), and .79 (conscientiousness).

Leadership ratings

After reading the electronic communications, one of the authors, a management doctoral student enrolled in another university who was knowledgeable of leadership theory, not part of the instructional team, and blind to the research hypotheses, made an assessment of each member’s leadership emergence. Leadership was coded with eight items previously used in virtual teams research (e.g., Kayworth & Leidner, 2001). The rater assigned scores (from one to seven) for each virtual team member, reflecting the extent to which the person emerged as a leader on each item. Consistent with leadership theory historically (Judge et al., 2004), we expected that some of these items would reflect leadership oriented toward the project task, while others would be oriented toward supporting team members. Accordingly, we factor-analyzed the eight items, obtaining two factors (with eigenvalues greater than one, loadings greater than .40, and no substantial cross-loadings; Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986) using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation. The factor loadings are presented in Table 1. Factor I had thematic elements reflecting a task orientation (five items), while Factor II was related more to a social-oriented approach (three items). Coefficient alphas of .89 and .71 were obtained, suggesting that the scales are internally consistent and reliable.

Table 1

Summary of Exploratory Factor Analysis Results for Leader Emergence Measure (N = 251)

	Factor loadings
Item	Task focus	Social focus
This person provides direction for the team	.814	.138
This person suggests or tries out inventive or new ideas	.622	.109
This person sets goals for the team	.672	.235
This person tries to ensure that other team members are meeting goals	.676	.195
This person tries to exert influence in the team	.834	.210
This person praises others in the team for what they have done	.185	.697
This person shows empathy, concern, and sensitivity in dealing with other team members	.302	.510
The affective tone of this person’s messages are generally positive (that is, positive emotion is conveyed)	.051	.660
Eigenvalues	3.71	1.39
% of variance	46.34	17.35

Note: Factor loadings over .40 appear in italics and boldface.

To further assess the reliability of the coding scheme, a second coder completed the rating scale for a subset of 54 teams and 197 team members. Coefficient alphas for the task- and social-oriented leadership scales for the second rater of .90 and .71 were obtained. To assess the extent to which the ratings of the secondary coder were internally consistent with those of the primary coder, the five task-oriented and three social-oriented items as scored by each rater for the 197 commonly coded team members were combined and examined jointly to compute new coefficient alphas. Coefficient alphas of .91 and .77 were obtained, suggesting that the emergent leadership coding system is reliable. Since complete data on all 71 teams was available from the primary coder only, that data was used exclusively in the analyses.

Team trustworthiness

An 8-item scale developed by Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) was used to measure team trustworthiness. A sample item is “Overall, the people in my group are very trustworthy.” All items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (to no extent) to 5 (to a great extent). Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) obtained an alpha of .92; in this study, alpha was .88.

Member performance contributions

Peer evaluations were used to assess team member performance contributions. Respondents were instructed to report members’ names, roles (e.g., contributing ideas, leadership), and overall contributions (major/minor/none), and to allocate 100 points across the members to indicate their proportional contribution to the project. The points awarded to a particular member by all members, including himself or herself, were summed to obtain the member performance contribution scores.

Team performance

The score (0-100) awarded by the instructor for the final group paper that summarized the written case analysis served as the measure of team performance.

Control variables

As noted above, we consider the cognitive abilities (class rank, GPA), professional/technical KSAs (academic and computer self-efficacy, work experience), and attributes pertinent to telecooperation (propensity to trust, attitudes toward computers) of team members to be potential predictors of team performance. Hence we administered measures of these variables for inclusion as potential control variables in the analysis.

Compeau and Higgins’ (1995) 10-item computer self-efficacy scale asks individuals to rate their ability (with a 7-point response format—very low to very high) to accomplish a computer-related task using different levels of assistance. A sample item is “if there was no one around to tell me what to do as I go.” This measure has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in prior research (Compeau & Higgins, 1995); coefficient alpha in our sample was .93.

We adopted a 10-item academic self-efficacy scale that was derived from Riggs, Warka, Babasa, Betancourt, and Hooker’s (1994) general self-efficacy scale and adapted for an academic context by Finn and Frone (2004). Using a 7-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree, respondents rated confidence in their academic abilities. A sample item is “I am expert in my courses.” Finn and Frone (2004) reported a coefficient alpha of .77; in this study, alpha was .74. Additionally, we administered Jarvenpaa and colleagues (1998) 4-item propensity to trust scale. A sample item is “Most students tell the truth about the limits of their knowledge.”

Finally, we used Popovich, Hyde, Zakrajsek, and Blumer’s (1987) measures of positive and negative attitudes toward computers. One item (“I do not like to program computerized items such as VCRs”) from the 7-item Popovich and colleagues (1987) negative attitudes toward computers was dropped because it substantially lowered coefficient alpha. A sample item is “I know that I will never understand how to use computers.” A 5-point response scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree was employed. The final coefficient alpha was .88.

Analytical Approach

The hypothesized relationships can be partitioned into two separate sets. The relationships among the personality characteristics, emergent leadership variables, and member performance contributions comprise relationships among individual-level variables. Alternatively, the relationships among aggregate emergent leadership, aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness and team performance comprise relationships among team-level variables. More specifically, each of the individual-level and team-level sets of relationships are specific to a single level, and there are no cross-level relationships that are specified. As such, the analyses of each of the individual-level and team-level hypotheses were conducted independently. But because participants were nested within teams, nonindependence in the data may be an issue when testing relationships among the individual-level variables (e.g., Bliese, 2000). With respect to the dependent variables measured at the individual level, the following ICC(1) values (which mark the amount of between-team variance or dependence; Bliese, 2000) were obtained: Task-oriented aspects of leader emergence = .00, social-oriented aspects of leader emergence = .22, peer ratings of member performance contribution = .00, and perceptions of team trustworthiness = .20. In some cases, there is no dependence in the data. This is the case for task-oriented aspects of leader emergence and peer ratings of member performance contribution. In the case of the latter, this is an artifact. Because the total peer ratings of member contributions must sum to 100 within each team, there would necessarily be no between-team variance. There was no theoretical reason to expect between-team differences in aspects of leader emergence, but where these arose, an analytical approach was chosen to control for such properties.

Because there were team-level properties in some of the data, to remain consistent in our analytical approach, random coefficient modeling using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling software (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2007) was used to test all hypotheses involving relationships among individual-level variables. In such cases, the individual served as the unit of analysis, but we accounted for any dependence owing to team membership. Specifically, relationships involving the Big Five traits, task- and social-oriented aspects of leader emergence, and member performance contributions (spanning Hypotheses 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 5a and 5b) were examined within this framework. Following the recommendation of Hofmann and Gavin (1998), all predictors were grand-mean centered in these analyses.

Alternatively, hypotheses involving relationships among team-level variables were assessed using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression with the team as the unit of analysis. Specifically, relationships involving aggregate levels of task- and social-oriented aspects of leader emergence, aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness, and team performance (spanning Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 6a, 6b, and 7) were examined within this framework. The decision to adopt this approach was driven by interest in how these variables predict team performance. Because team performance varies only between teams, it can be predicted only by variables that vary between teams, and is captured by aggregates of leader emergence and team trustworthiness.

Results

Intercorrelations among the study variables are presented in Table 2. Correlational analyses revealed that class rank, work experience, and computer self-efficacy (Compeau & Higgins, 1995) were positively related to member performance contributions, while academic self-efficacy (Finn & Frone, 2004) was negatively related. Hence these variables were included as controls in the analyses for which member performance contribution served as the outcome. Because propensity to trust was positively related to team trustworthiness, it was included as a control in the analyses predicting team trustworthiness. In the full models predicting team performance, in which perceptions of team trustworthiness was included as a predictor, propensity to trust was also included as a control.

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations (SD) and Correlations for Study Variables

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	SD	Mean
1. Extroversion	4.91	0.80	—	.15	.41**	.51**	.24*	−.02	.05	−.03	.14	−.07	0.46	4.88
2. Agreeableness	4.86	0.74	.26**	—	.05	.24*	.09	.25*	.13	.23*	.08	.25*	0.43	4.87
3. Conscientiousness	5.17	0.69	.33**	.10	—	.33**	.12	−.14	.08	−.16	.13	.12	0.38	5.15
4. Emotional stability	4.44	0.95	.40**	.20**	.36**	—	.28*	.13	.16	.12	.13	.15	0.59	4.40
5. Openness to experience	4.17	0.74	.18**	−.01	−.03	.04	—	.13	.13	−.20	−.04	−.03	0.44	4.17
6. Task–oriented emergent leadership	4.47	0.99	.04	.07	.17**	.08	.09	—	.24*	.43**	.06	.30*	0.41	4.47
7. Social–oriented emergent leadership	4.68	0.87	.08	.14*	.15*	.04	.04	.43**	—	.10	.48**	.05	0.58	4.66
8. Member performance contributions	1.02	0.28	−.07	.03	.11	.04	.02	.63**	.30**	—	.07	.37**	0.11	1.03
9. Perceptions of team trustworthiness	3.70	0.67	.16*	.14*	.09	.16*	−.05	−.09	.22**	−.18**	—	.03	0.46	3.67
10. Team Performance	21.53	1.86	−.04	.14*	.07	.09	−.03	.11	.01	.13	.02	—	1.89	21.45

Note: Individual-level correlations (N = 243) are below the diagonal, with team performance assigned down to each team member; team-level correlations (N = 71) are above the diagonal, with all variables aggregated within the team.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

The results of the random coefficient models used to test the individual-level hypotheses are summarized in Table 3. To assess the contribution of the Big Five model to explaining leader emergence, we regressed each of the two leader emergence factors on the Big Five factors as a set. Agreeableness was positively related to the social-oriented aspects of leader emergence, thereby providing support for Hypothesis 1. However, emotional stability was not significantly related to the social-oriented aspects of leader emergence. Thus, Hypothesis 3b was not supported. Conscientiousness was significantly and positively related to the task-oriented aspects of leader emergence, supporting Hypothesis 2. Emotional stability, however, was not related to the task-oriented aspects of leader emergence. As such, Hypothesis 3a was not supported.

Table 3.

Individual-Level Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results for Leader Emergence and Peer Ratings of Member Performance Contributions

	Dependent variables
	Task-oriented emergent leadership	Social-oriented emergent leadership	Member performance contributions	Member performance contributions
Independent variable	γ	γ	γ	γ
Class rank	—	—	0.03	0.01
Work experience	—	—	0.02*	0.01
Academic self-efficacy	—	—	−0.03	−0.01
Computer self-efficacy	—	—	0.03*	0.02
Extroversion	−0.09	0.01	—	−0.03
Agreeableness	0.09	0.14*	—	0.00
Conscientiousness	0.25*	0.18	—	−0.01
Emotional stability	0.02	−0.04	—	0.01
Openness to experience	0.14	0.03	—	−0.02
Task-oriented emergent leadership	—	—	—	0.16*
Social-oriented emergent leadership	—	—	—	0.02
R ²	.02	.02	.04	0.38
ΔR²	—	—	—	0.34

Regression estimates are unstandardized. R² values are calculated as the portion of within-team variance associated with the set of predictors. ΔR² values are calculated as the change in the portion of within-team variance. N = 243.

p ≤ .05.

When modeling peer ratings of member performance contributions as an outcome, the control variables included class rank, work experience, academic self-efficacy and computer self-efficacy. Only work experience and computer self-efficacy emerged as significant predictors. The task-oriented and social-oriented aspects of leader emergence as well as the Big Five factors were then added as predictors. The Big Five factors were included to allow for direct effects of personality on member performance contributions, under the assumption that not all of the effects of the Big Five factors are carried through leader emergence. In this model, task-oriented emergent leadership was related to member performance contributions, providing support for Hypothesis 5a. However, Hypothesis 5b was not supported, as social-oriented emergent leadership was not related to peer ratings of member performance contributions. No other predictors, including the Big Five factors, emerged as significant.

Because the hypotheses collectively suggest that the Big Five factors will have an indirect effect on member performance contributions via both dimensions of emergent leadership, all ten indirect effects were assessed in a supplemental analysis. Using the Sobel (1982) test, only the indirect effect of conscientiousness on member performance contributions via task-oriented emergent leadership was significant (unstandardized estimate = .04, p≤ .05).

Table 4 includes the OLS regression results from the analysis of the interrelationships among aggregate leader emergence and aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness, as well as team performance. In the initial model of team performance, aggregate computer self-efficacy and negative attitudes toward computers were first entered as controls. Neither was significantly related to the outcome. To test Hypotheses 6a and 6b, aggregate task-oriented and social-oriented aspects of leader emergence were added as predictors. Aggregate task-oriented emergent leadership was significantly and positively related to team performance, providing support for Hypothesis 6a. However, Hypothesis 6b was not supported, as aggregate social-oriented emergent leadership was not related to team performance.

Table 4

Team-Level Regression Results for Team Performance and Aggregate Team Trustworthiness

	Dependent variables
	Team performance	Team performance	Aggregate team trustworthiness	Aggregate team trustworthiness	Team performance	Team performance
Aggregate independent variables	Regression coefficient	Regression coefficient	Regression coefficient	Regression coefficient	Regression coefficient	Regression coefficient
Computer self-efficacy	0.68/0.23	0.83/0.28	—	—	0.69/0.24	0.82*/0.28
Negative attitude toward computers	−0.52/−0.13	0.03/0.01	—	—	−0.53/−0.13	0.03/0.01
Propensity to trust	—	—	0.67*/0.38	0.61*/0.34	0.29/0.04	−0.10/−0.01
Task-oriented emergent leadership	—	1.34*/0.29	—	−0.13/−0.11	—	1.36*/0.29
Social-oriented emergent leadership	—	−0.14/−0.04	—	0.38*/0.47	—	−0.17/−0.05
Team trustworthiness	—	—	—	—	—	0.08/0.02
R ²	.10	.16	.14	.35	.10	.17
ΔR²	—	.06	—	.21	—	.07

Note: The first entry in each cell is the unstandardized regression coefficient; the second entry in each cell is the standardized regression coefficient. N = 71.

p ≤ .05.

In modeling aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness, aggregate propensity to trust was first entered as a control. It was significantly and positively related to aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness. Next, both the aggregate task-oriented and social-oriented aspects of leader emergence were included as predictors. Aggregate social-oriented emergent leadership was significantly and positively related to aggregate team trustworthiness, providing support for Hypothesis 4b. Hypothesis 4a was not supported, as aggregate task-oriented emergent leadership was not related to aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness.

A final model of team performance was assessed to examine the relationship between aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness and team performance. This model also included aggregate task- and social-oriented leadership emergence to allow for their direct effects on team performance. As a first step, aggregate computer self-efficacy, negative attitudes toward computers, and propensity to trust were included as controls; none emerged as significant. Next, aggregate task- and social-oriented emergent leadership and perceptions of team trustworthiness were added as predictors. Contrary to Hypothesis 7, aggregate team trustworthiness was not significantly related to team performance. Only aggregate task-oriented emergent leadership was significantly related to team performance, providing additional support for Hypothesis 6a.

As a final supplemental analysis, we examined the indirect effects of aggregate task- and social-oriented leadership emergence on team performance via aggregate perceptions of team trustworthiness. Although implied by our hypotheses, these indirect effects were not significant.

Discussion

Our findings regarding the posited relationships between the Big Five factors and leader emergence were mixed. As expected, agreeableness predicted the social-oriented aspects of leadership, as more versus less agreeable persons were more inclined to exhibit social-oriented leadership. However, no support for the posited direct and indirect (through social-oriented leadership) effects of agreeableness on peer ratings of member performance was obtained.

The identified relationship between agreeableness and social-oriented emergent leadership is consistent with evidence that it relates positively with transformational leadership (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000; Lim & Ployhart, 2004). Perhaps agreeableness contributes to the emergence of individualized consideration (Bass, 1985), an element of transformational leadership that may be especially important within virtual settings where technological barriers may impede social support from teammates (Purvanova & Bono, 2009). Further research is needed to explicate the relationship between agreeableness and specific forms of leadership (e.g., transformational leadership) within virtual settings, as well as the extent to which contextual factors (e.g., task goal, task interdependence, group size, technology, geographic dispersion of members; Martins et al., 2004) impact the strength of this relationship.

Our analysis also provided support for the predicted positive relationship between conscientiousness and task-oriented emergent leadership. Furthermore, while conscientiousness was not directly related to member performance contributions, an indirect effect through task-oriented emergent leadership was revealed. It appears that, as is the case in face-to-face teams (Judge, Bono et al., 2002), the sense of direction, organizational skills, and reliability of highly conscientious persons are as important, or perhaps even more important (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002), to the emergence and performance of task-oriented leaders within virtual settings. Future research should focus on the degree to which particular attributes of virtual teams (e.g., task interdependence, media richness, external leadership support; Martins et al., 2004) mediate the relationships between conscientiousness and emergent task-oriented leadership.

We expected the factors that contribute to the inhibiting effects of neuroticism on leader emergence in face-to-face settings would be as strong, or perhaps even more potent, in virtual settings where the potential for miscommunication by insecure persons may be more pronounced due to technological limitations (Bosch-Sijtsema, 2007; Martins et al., 2004). However, the results revealed that emotional stability was not significantly related to either dimension of emergent leadership. Hence, no evidence of the predicted positive relationships between emotional stability and the task-oriented and social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership was obtained. One possible explanation for these nonsupportive findings is that the detrimental effects of low emotional stability are less pronounced within a virtual team setting simply because the relatively lean communication media (DeRosa et al., 2004) available provide fewer opportunities for neurotic persons to communicate negative emotions such as anger and anxiety. Indeed, in contrast to face-to-face settings, where negative affect is more readily apparent through nonverbal communications, virtual media serve to filter out nonverbal cues (DeRosa et al., 2004). Hence, research is needed to explore the extent to which media richness mediates the negative relationship between neuroticism and leader emergence, such that these effects are less pronounced or absent for lean versus rich media. Some initial support for this explanation is provided by Balthazard and colleagues (2009), who found that neuroticism was negatively related to transformational leadership in face-to-face but not virtual teams. If further evidence that the relatively lean media of virtual teams mitigate the normally adverse effects of neuroticism on leader emergence is forthcoming, the merits of encouraging less emotionally stable persons to use virtual media more extensively should be considered.

Support for the prediction that members who exhibit high versus low levels of emergent leadership behaviors would be perceived by peers as making greater contributions to team performance was obtained for the task- but not the social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership. Apparently, only task-directed behaviors were viewed by members of these virtual teams as contributing to task accomplishment. Note that this interpretation is consistent with the results of two qualitative studies of leadership within virtual teams which revealed that task-oriented behaviors were especially valued by teammates (Flammia et al., 2010; Sivunen, 2008).

Although the social-oriented aspects of emergent leadership were unrelated to perceptions of individual performance, our results indicate that, in the aggregate, they have positive effects on team processes. Specifically, our predication that aggregate social-oriented leadership behaviors would produce elevated perceptions of team trustworthiness was supported. This finding is consistent with research that suggests the specialized distribution of leadership roles through shared leadership fosters elevated levels of member trust (Avolio et al., 1996). Our findings suggest that social-oriented leader behaviors may be necessary to convince members that their teammates are trustworthy. However, our finding that the task-oriented emergent leadership was unrelated to team trustworthiness, suggests that more research is needed to tease out how the specific functions of shared leadership relate to perceived team trustworthiness.

We posited positive relationships to team performance for both dimensions of emergent leadership at the aggregate level. However, only the predicted relationship between aggregate task-related emergent leadership and team performance was significant. Hence, our findings are consistent with DeRosa and colleagues’ (2004, p. 227) contention that the “spatial and temporal distances inherent in virtual teams demand that managers focus more closely on actual results and performance than may be the case in face-to-face management arrangements.” However, given the preponderance of research that suggests social-oriented leadership can serve to enhance leader effectiveness (Judge et al., 2004), additional research into contextual factors (Martins et al., 2004) that may operate to heighten their importance within virtual team settings is warranted.

As previously noted, the importance of mutual trust as a precondition for virtual team performance is well established (Hertel et al., 2004, 2005, 2006; Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, 2004; Peters & Karren, 2009; Sarker, Ajuja, Sarker, & Kirkeby, 2011). Our study is somewhat unique, however, in that it examined the extent to which team performance is related to perceptions of team trustworthiness (i.e., a character-based assessment of the extent to which team members are worthy of trust), rather than team trust (i.e., the intention of team members to make themselve vulnerable to other members; Frazier et al., 2010). Tests for aggregation (ICCs) indicated that perceptions of team trustworthiness exist at the collective level, suggesting that this is a promising team level construct that may provide insight into the role that trust plays within virtual teams. Indeed, it appears that high levels of agreement among team members regarding the trustworthiness of teammates contributed to enhanced team performance. Further research is needed to further explore the determinants of team trustworthiness within virtual contexts.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

A notable limitation of our study stems from our exclusive use of a student project team sample. Although this practice is shared by many virtual team studies (e.g., Carte et al., 2006; Flammia et al., 2010; Hambley et al., 2007; Ocker et al., 2011; Purvanova & Bono, 2009), such samples limit the potential generalizability of our findings. Some argue, however, that the problems arising from student samples in organizational research are overblown. Indeed, while legitimate concerns have been raised (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986), a consensus has emerged that this practice is appropriate when the research focuses on basic individual and/or group processes (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999). Because our research questions involved the influence of basic personality traits and emergent leadership processes on team trustworthiness and performance within a generic virtual team context, we consider college students to be an appropriate sample. Nevertheless, we encourage replications within field settings to assess the generalizability of our findings to more applied virtual team contexts.

A second limitation is that the virtual teams studied were composed of members from a single university. In practice, however, “global virtual teams” (Jarvenpaa et al., 1998, 2004; Sarker et al., 2011) composed of geographically dispersed members with diverse cultural backgrounds are becoming more common. It is unclear to what extent the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness identified as being related to leader emergence would emerge in more culturally diverse virtual teams. Hence, future research that explores the relationships of personality to leadership within global and diverse virtual teams is warranted.

Other limitations arise from the task (a case analysis) and the time horizon for the team project (12 weeks). Research indicates that task attributes and time constraints serve as important inputs that impact virtual team processes and outcomes (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Martins et al., 2004). Hence, future research that explores the extent to which our findings would hold for more or less complicated or interdependent tasks with shorter or longer time horizons is needed.

Conclusion

With the rise of virtual teams across the organizational landscape (Algesheimer et al., 2011; Hertel et al., 2005), and growing recognition of the importance of leadership processes to the success of such teams (Carte et al., 2006; Hambley et al., 2007; Shuffler et al., 2010), greater attention to the antecedents that contribute to leader emergence and its effects within virtual contexts is needed. Our findings suggest that, when assembling virtual teams, consideration should be given to the inclusion of both highly conscientious and agreeable persons. Doing so will increase the likelihood that leaders will emerge to engage in the types of task- and social-oriented activities that our results suggest enhance team performance and team trustworthiness, respectively. If replicated, these findings may help organizations adopting virtual teams to more fully realize their potential to promote brave new forms of work and leadership.

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.

Bios

Chris Broberg (Ph.D., Texas Tech University), is an Assistant Professor of Management at Wichita State University where he teaches entrepreneurship courses in new product and new venture development. His current research interests include determinants of innovative activity, business model innovation, content analysis, and strategic leadership.

Claudia Cogliser (Ph.D., University of Miami) is an associate professor in the Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, USA. Her main research interests include leader-follower relationships, authentic leadership, and scale development.

William L. Gardner (DBA, Florida State University), is the Jerry S. Rawls Chair in Leadership and Director of the Institute for Leadership Research at Texas Tech University, USA. Current research interests include leadership, impression management, emotional labor, causal attributions, ethical decision-making, and organizational recruitment and socialization processes.

Mark Gavin (Ph.D., Purdue University), is a faculty member at West Virginia University and serves as the Department of Management’s Ph.D. Program Coordinator. He researches in the areas of interpersonal trust, leadership, emotions, employee behavior and multilevel phenomena and his work has appeared in Academy of Management Journal, Human Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Personnel Psychology, among others. He serves on the editorial boards of Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior and Organizational Research Methods. He is the Past President of the Southern Management Association, and currently serves as a Representative-at-large on the Board of Governors for the Academy of Management.

References

Algesheimer

Dholakia

U. M.

Gurau

(2011). Virtual team performance in a highly competitive environment. Group & Organization Management, 36, 161-190.

Anderson

C. A.

Lindsay

J. J.

Bushman

B. J.

(1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3-9.

Avolio

B. J.

Jung

D. I.

Murry

Sivasbramaniam

(1996). Building highly developed teams: Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy, trust, and performance. In Beyerlein

M. M.

Johnson

D. A.

Beyerlein

S. T.

(Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Team leadership (Vol. 3, pp. 173-209). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Balthazard

P. A.

Waldman

D. A.

Warren

J. E.

(2009). Predictors of the emergence of transformational and transactional leadership in virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 651-663.

Barrick

M. R.

Mount

M. K.

(1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.

Baruch

Holtom

B. C

. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160.

Bass

B. M.

(1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Bell

B. S.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(2002). A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & Organization Management, 27, 14-39.

Bliese

P. B.

(2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Klein

K. J.

Kozlowski

S. W. J.

(Eds.), Multi-level theory, research, and methods (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

10.

Bono

J. E.

Judge

T. A.

(2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901-910.

11.

Bosch-Sijtsema

(2007). The impact of individual expectations and expectation conflicts on virtual teams. Group & Organization Management, 32, 358-388.

12.

Burke

C. S.

Sims

D. E.

Lazzara

E. H.

Salas

(2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and integration. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 606-632.

13.

Carte

T. A.

Chidambaram

Becker

(2006). Emergent leadership in self-managed virtual teams: A longitudinal study of concentrated and shared leadership behaviors. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 323-343.

14.

Compeau

D. R.

Higgins

C. A.

(1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189-211.

15.

Costa

P. T.

McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

16.

Day

D. V.

Gronn

Salas

(2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new erea. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211-216.

17.

DeRosa

D. M.

Hantula

D. A.

Kock

D’Arcy

(2004). Trust and leadership in virtual teamwork: A media naturalness perspective. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3), 219-232.

18.

Finn

K. V.

Frone

M. R.

(2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 115-122.

19.

Flammia

Cleary

Slattery

D. M.

(2010). Leadership roles, socioemotional communication strategies, and technology use of Irish and US students in virtual teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 53(2), 89-101.

20.

Fleishman

E. A.

(1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In Fleishman

E. A.

Hunt

J. G.

(Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

21.

Ford

J. K.

MacCallum

R. C.

Tait

(1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-315.

22.

Frazier

M. L.

Johnson

P. D.

Gavin

Gooty

Snow

D. B.

(2010). Organizational justice, trustworthiness, and trust: A multifoci examination. Group & Organization Management, 35, 39-76.

23.

Gordon

M. E.

Slade

L. A.

Schmitt

(1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191-207.

24.

Hambley

L. A.

O’Neill

T. A.

Kline

T. J. B.

(2007). Virtual team leadership: The effects of leadership style and communication medium on team interaction styles and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 1-20.

25.

Hertel

Geister

Konradt

(2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69-95.

26.

Hertel

Konradt

Orlikowski

(2004). Managing distance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interdependence, and team-based rewards in vitual teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 1-28.

27.

Hertel

Konradt

Voss

(2006). Competencies for virtual teamwork: Development and validation of a web-based selection tool for members of distributed teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 477-504.

28.

House

R. J.

(1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-339.

29.

Ilies

Gerhardt

M. W.

(2004). Individual differences in leadership emergence: Integrating meta-analytic findings and behavioral genetics estimates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 207-219.

30.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Knoll

Leidner

D. E.

(1998). Is anybody out there? Trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64.

31.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Shaw

T. R.

Stapes

D. S.

(2004). Toward contextualized theories of trust: The role of trust in global virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 15(3), 250-267.

32.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

(2000). Five factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 751-765.

33.

Judge

T. A.

Bono

J. E.

Ilies

Gerhardt

M. W.

(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

34.

Judge

T. A.

Erez

Bono

J. E.

Thoresen

C. J.

(2002). Discriminant and incremental validity of four personality traits: Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 693-710.

35.

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.

36.

Kayworth

T. R.

Leidner

D. E.

(2001). Leadership effectiveness in virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18, 7-40.

37.

Kickul

Neuman

(2000). Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15(1), 27-51.

38.

LePine

J. A.

Van Dyne

(2001). Voice and cooperative behavior in contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.

39.

Lim

B. C.

Ployhart

R. E.

(2004). Transformational leadership: Relations to the five-factor model and team performance in typical and maximum contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 610-621.

40.

Lord

R. G.

DeVader

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.

41.

Martins

L. L.

Gilson

L. L.

Maynard

M. T.

(2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835.

42.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the Five-Factor Model of personality traits. In Boyle

G. J.

Matthews

Saklofske

D. H.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol. 1, Personality theories and models, pp. 273-294). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

43.

McCrae

R. R.

John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

44.

Meyerson

Weick

K. E.

Kramer

R. M.

(1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Morgeson

F. P.

Reider

M. H.

Campion

M. A.

(2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583-611.

46.

Ocker

R. J.

Huang

Benbunan-Fich

Hiltz

S. R.

(2011). Leadership dynamics in partially distributed teams: An exploratory study of the effects of configuration and distance. Group Decision Negotiation, 20, 273-292.

47.

Pauleen

D. J.

(2004). An inductively derived model of leader-initiated relationship building with virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(3), 227-256.

48.

Pearce

C. L.

Conger

J. A.

(2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

49.

Peters

Karren

R. J.

(2009). An examination of the roles of trust and functional diversity on virtual team performance ratings. Group & Organization Management, 34, 479-504.

50.

Popovich

P. M.

Hyde

K. R.

Zakrajsek

Blumer

(1987). The development of the attitudes toward computer usage scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 261-269.

51.

Purvanova

R. K.

Bono

J. E.

(2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.

52.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

Congdon

R. T.

(2007). HLM version 6.04 software. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

53.

Reichard

R. J.

Riggio

R. E.

Guerin

D. W.

Oliver

P. H.

Gottfried

A. W.

Gottfried

A. E.

(2011). A longitudinal analysis of relationships between adolescent personality and intelligence with adult leader emergence and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 471-481.

54.

Riggs

M. L.

Warka

Babasa

Betancourt

Hooker

(1994). Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 793-802.

55.

Sarker

Ajuja

Sarker

Kirkeby

(2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28, 273-309.

56.

Shuffler

M. L.

Wiese

C. W.

Salas

Burke

C. S.

(2010). Leading one another across time and space: Exploring shared leadership fuctions in virtual teams. Revista de Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 26(1), 3-17.

57.

Sivunen

(2008). The communication of leaders in virtual teams: Expectations and their realisation in leaders’ computer-mediated communications. Journal of E-working, 2, 47-60.

58.

Smith

M. A.

Canger

J. M.

(2004). Effects of supervisor “Big Five” personality on subordinate attitudes. Journal of Business & Psychology, 18, 465-481.

59.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

60.

Stogdill

R. M.

(1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35-71.

61.

Tyran

K. L.

Tyran

C. K.

Shepherd

(2003). Exploring emerging leadership in virtual teams. In Gibson

Cohen

(Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 183-195). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

62.

Wakefield

R. L.

Leidner

D. E.

Garrison

(2008). A model of conflict, leadership and performance in virtual teams. Information Systems Research, 19, 434-455.

63.

Yoo

Alavi

(2004). Emergent leadership in virtual teams: What do emergent leaders do? Information & Organization, 14, 27-58.

64.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6-16.