Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Navigating the Pathway to Leader Emergence in Self-Managed Work Groups Over Time: Should I Self-Promote and Try to Emerge Initially as a Leader?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite literature revealing the negative effects of self-promotion on important outcomes for women in interviews, there is limited attention on whether this relationship exists in a peer-to-peer context (e.g., self-managed work groups). Whereas men’s self-promotion is vital to attain interview success, work has shown that self-promoting men are not viewed favorably in a peer-to-peer setting. Moreover, most self-promotion research has focused on a single time point. It is thus a puzzle as to whether and when one should use self-promotion to emerge as a leader in a self-managed work group over time. My study addresses this gap. A longitudinal study spanning a thirteen-week period and involving 165 participants distributed across 44 self-managed work groups was performed. The results showed that, for women, there was a negative effect of self-promotion on leader emergence, and its effects subsequently accumulated. For men, self-promotion was critical to their leader emergence. The findings also indicated that emerging as a leader at the onset of a project serves as a springboard for subsequent leader emergence. Contrary to existing work, gender salience in work groups does not reduce over time. The present findings imply that managers need to be aware of possible biases in leader emergence ratings resulting from self-promotion if such ratings are utilized in their promotion decisions. Despite progressive improvements made with respect to gender-related issues over the years, societal expectations of gender norms in work groups appear to persist.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

  • Alge, B. J., Wiethoff, C., & Klein, H. J. (2003). When does the medium matter? Knowledge-building experiences and opportunities in decision-making teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00524-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 491–503. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. R., Olian, J. D., Erez, M., Schnell, E. R., Smith, K. G., Sims, H. P. (1993). Nationality and work role interactions: A cultural contrast of Israeli and U.S. entrepreneurs’ versus managers' needs. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(6), 499–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90035-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. A., Morgan, G., Schoeneberger, J. A., Loudermilk, B., Kromrey, J. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2010). Dancing the sample-size limbo with mixed models: How low can you go? Paper presented at SAS Global Forum, Seattle. Retrieved from http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings10/197-2010.pdf

  • Berger, J., Fisek, M., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1977). Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectations states approach. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman Taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819922005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H., & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1080–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308324325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., & Daniels, D. (2014). The impact of impression management over time. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(3), 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2012-0290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, D. P., & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll, V. L. (2012). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212439994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carli, L. L. (2010). Gender and group behavior. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 337–358). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chidambaram, L., Lim, J. Y.-K., & Carte, T. A. (2008). Gender, media and leader emergence: Examining the impression management strategies of men and women in different settings. Paper presented at 14th Proceedings of Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS). Toronto, Ontario: Canada. Retrieved from https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2008/238.

  • Cooper, C. D. (2005). Just joking around? Employee humor expression as an ingratiatory behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 765–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalal, R. S., Lam, H., Weiss, H. M., Welch, E. R., & Hulin, C. L. (2009). A within-person approach to work behavior and performance: Concurrent and lagged citizenship-counterproductivity associations, and dynamic relationships with affect and overall job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1051–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi, A. S. (1996). Cognitive processes in performance appraisal: A research agenda with implications for practice. London: Routledge Publishing, Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNisi, A. S., Cafferty, T. P., & Meglino, B. M. (1984). A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: A model and research propositions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33(3), 360–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90029-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., & Ashford, S. J. (2015). Interpersonal perceptions and the emergence of leadership structures in groups: A network perspective. Organization Science, 26(4), 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5), 685–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002). Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 929–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00135.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. M. (1981). Beyond attribution theory: Cognitive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/256496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274–309. https://doi.org/10.2307/256363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., Zivnuska, S., & Shaw, J. D. (2007). The impact of political skill on impression management effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 278–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. J., Gallagher, V. C., & Rossi, A. M. (2013). Impression management (IM) behaviors, IM culture, and job outcomes. Journal of Managerial Issues, 25(2), 154–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., Ferris, G. R., Higgins, C. A., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. (2015). Longitudinal analysis: Modeling within-person fluctuation and change. New York: Routledge Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T., Spizman, R. F., & Pollak, L. (2002). Women for hire: The ultimate guide to getting a job. New York: Perigee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives of the self (pp. 231–261). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karakowsky, L., & Siegel, J. P. (1999). The effects of proportional representation and gender orientation of the task on emergent leadership behavior in mixed-gender work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 620–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.620.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, R. L., & Moss, S. E. (1994). Effects of sex and gender role on leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1335–1346. https://doi.org/10.2307/256675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary, M. R. (1989). Self-presentational processes in leader emergence and effectiveness. In R. A. Giacalone & P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemoine, G. J., Aggarwal, I., & Steed, L. B. (2016). When women emerge as leaders: Effects of extraversion and gender composition in groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 470–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 87–128). Greenwich: JAI Press.

  • 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(3), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maher, K. J. (1995). The role of cognitive load in supervisor attributions of subordinate behavior. In M. J. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 193–209). Delray Beach, Florida: St. Lucie Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Ilies, R. (2009). The development of leader-member exchanges: Exploring how personality and performance influence leader and member relationships over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyquist, L., & Spence, J. (1986). Effects of dispositional dominance and sex role expectations on leadership behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pescosolido, A. T. (2001). Informal leaders and the development of group efficacy. Small Group Research, 32(1), 74–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, B. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00135.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2012). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Gulford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scopelliti, I., Loewenstein, G., & Vosgerau, J. (2015). You call it “self-exuberance”; I call it “bragging”: Miscalibrated predictions of emotional responses to self-promotion. Psychological Science, 26, 903–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615573516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. W. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurence. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.

  • Tagger, S., Hackew, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52(4), 889–926.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobak, S. (2015). Why self-promotion is a terrible idea. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245233

  • Tsai, W.-C., Chen, C.-C., & Chiu, S.-F. (2005). Exploring boundaries of the effects of applicant impression management tactics in job interviews. Journal of Management, 31(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turnley, W. H., & Bolino, M. C. (2001). Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: Exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Valacich, J. S., Jung, J. H., & Looney, C. A. (2006). The effects of individual cognitive ability and idea stimulation on idea-generation performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C. (1998). When a woman is the boss. Dilemmas in taking charge. Group and Organization Studies, 13(2), 163–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, C., & Hoffman, L. R. (2004). The role of task-related behavior in the emergence of leaders. The dilemma of the informed woman. Group & Organization Management, 29(6), 659–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 232–260. https://doi.org/10.2307/256734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, K. R., & Walther, J. B. (2007). Perceived behaviors of emergent and assigned leaders in virtual groups. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 3(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2007010101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Singapore University of Social Sciences, 461 Clementi Road, Singapore, 599491, Singapore

    JoAnne Yong-Kwan Lim

Authors
  1. JoAnne Yong-Kwan Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JoAnne Yong-Kwan Lim.

Ethics declarations

This article contains no conflict of interests. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university at which the data were collected. Ethical standards were followed in the conduct of the study. All participants provided informed consent prior to participation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lim, J.YK. Navigating the Pathway to Leader Emergence in Self-Managed Work Groups Over Time: Should I Self-Promote and Try to Emerge Initially as a Leader?. Sex Roles 80, 489–502 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0939-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0939-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation