Leadership Activity

How Followers Create Leaders: The Impact of Effective Followership on Leader Emergence in Self-Managing Teams

Xueting Jiang1, Kevin Snyder2, Jia Li3, and Charles C. Manz4 1 School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York, United States

2 Department of Sport Management, Southern New Hampshire University 3 Business School, Nanjing University

4 Department of Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst

Objective: In this study, we investigate how effective followership influences leader emergence in a nonhierarchical organizational context. By taking a “reversing the lens” view of leadership, we propose that an individual’s leadership behaviors and leadership self-identity are significantly affected by effective followership of his or her peers in self- managing teams. Method: We used a three-wave survey design and collected data from 58 self-managing student teams to test our model. Results: Our findings indicate that team members are more likely to become leaders in a leaderless group context when being exposed to more effective followership. Conclusions: This research presents empirical evidence on the importance of followers to the creation of leaders.

Highlights and Implications

• Organizations should purposefully increase interdependent team mem- ber activities to facilitate leadership development.

• Organizations need to encourage the expression of authentic opinions (positive and negative) about managers’ behaviors and performance.

• Organizations can pair leader development with followership develop- ment programs to cultivate effective followers and prospective leaders concurrently.

Keywords: followership, leader emergence, self-managing team

Managementofmodernorganizationsisbecom- ing more team based (Sundstrom, 1999) and more empowering (Argyris, 1998; Spreitzer, 1995). As organizations increasingly use project-specific teams, the need for team leaders to emerge quickly and effectively becomes paramount (Morgeson et al., 2010). The past 4 decades have shown a wider use of self-managing teams as a leading managerial innovation in many large United

States corporations (Magpili & Pazos, 2018). A self-managing team features no hierarchical role differentiation among members (DeRue et al., 2009) and an equal sharing of leadership (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). Researchers have found that self-managing teams lead to higher motivation, satisfaction, and team effectiveness (Cohen et al., 1996; Cohen & Ledford, 1994; Cordery et al., 1991; Langfred & Moye, 2004).

This article was published Online First July 29, 2021.

Xueting Jiang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1321-7332

Kevin Snyder https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3968-4174

Jia Li https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6532-4063 We extend our appreciation to D. Anthony Butterfield,

Jane K. Giacobbe-Miller, Daniel J. Miller, and Ryan M. Acton for helpful comments on earlier versions of this

article. We also thank Craig S. Wells, Aline G. Sayer, and Bruce Desmarais for assistance with data analysis. Jia Li is supported by grants from the National Natural

Science Foundation of China (Grant Number: 71902084). Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-

dressed to Jia Li, Business School, Nanjing University, AnZhong Building, JinYin Street, Nanjing 210093, China. Email: [email protected]

303

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 25, No. 4, 303–318 ISSN: 1089-2699 https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000159

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Previousliteratureindicatesthatmultiplegroup members may engage in leader-like behaviors to realize leadership functions in groups (Carson et al.,2007;Pearce&Conger,2003).Pluralforms of leadership have a strong presence in self- managing teams because members experience greaterresponsibilityandauthorityingoalsetting, monitoringprogress,anddecision-making(Denis et al., 2012). As self-managing teams assemble, roles are uncertain, and the leader–follower relationship advances through the leadership development process (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Compared with other types of teams, in self-managing teams, members of the work groups identify leaders rather than receiving a formal designation from the larger organization (Paunova, 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). Leader emergence refers to “whether (or to

what degree) an individual is viewed as a leader by others” (Judge et al., 2002). Emergent leader- ship literature suggests that an individual can acquire leadership status through functional be- haviors or leadership personality traits and abili- ties (Paunova, 2015). Leadership can also be a product of social interactions among organiza- tional members, recognized through a socially constructed process between leaders and fol- lowers (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006). Meindl (1995) suggested that leadership is an emergent phenomenon where leaders and followers make sense of themselves and their relationships with other group members. The individual highlights the self in an attempt to win followers’ acceptance and to reinforce self- perception as a leader, as their identity shifts from an individual to a collective level. Similarly, followers seek those with leadership authority to be a vehicle for their ideas and beliefs. Public behaviors entail messages about each individual during identity negotiation, the process through which team members can establish and validate their respective social identities in a group (Lührmann & Eberl, 2007). Researchers suggest that social influences shape

the individual identity of each group member (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). The breadth and intensity of interaction among leaders and followers contribute to the growth and development of leadership within a team (Carsten et al., 2010; DeRue, 2011;DeRue & Myers, 2014; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). The leader and follower represent consensual in-group social identities shared by group members (Collinson,

2006; Haslam & Platow, 2001). Group member behaviors affirm these relational identities (Haslam & Platow, 2001) and are associated with formal leading or following positions in organizational hierarchies (DeRue & Wellman, 2009). Thus, the identities of leaders and followers are not only mutually reinforced (Collinson, 2006), but also can be revised and reconstructed during work role transitions (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). Self-managing teams have high levels of emer-

gent leadership (Gerpott et al., 2019). Individual team members are involved in both leadership and followership roles and functions. Each may act in differentroles at different pointsintime, serving as either leader or follower, contingent upon the environments and team process (Collinson, 2006; Lord & Hall, 2005). In a group without a designated leader(s), several individuals may col- lectively perform leadership or multiple leaders may emerge (Paunova, 2015). Team members mightseethemselvesaspartnersintherelationship (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000), coproducers of leadership (Shamir, 2007), coleaders (Heenan & Bennis, 1999), or self-leaders (Manz, 1986). In reality, self-managing teams vary from cen-

tralized individualleadership toshared leadership among all group members, or to some intermedi- ate configuration (DeRue, 2011). How does a team member emerge as an informal leader in a self-managing team? The answer to this question is important to leadership development research and practices because a better understanding of individual team members’ leader emergence is critical to the collective leadership capacity of the team as well as the overall team effectiveness (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). Leadership development researchers suggest

that leadership is a learning exercise for indivi- duals, in which they develop as leaders by learn- ing the criticism and feedback from others to complete managerial jobs (DeRue et al., 2012; DeRue & Wellman, 2009; Dragoni et al., 2009). Since “leaders neither exist nor act in a vacuum without followers” (Kelley, 2008, p. 5), fol- lowers play a vital role in constructing leadership by “empowering the leader and influencing his or her behavior, and ultimately determining the consequences of the leadership relationship” (Howell & Shamir, 2005, p. 97). Although lead- ership researchers traditionally view followers as passive, obedient, and deferent subordinates (Kelley, 1988; Zaleznik, 1965), the more recent scholarship recognizes the importance of the

304 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

followers’ role in the leadership construction (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). The role of followers is not subordinate, but codependent as followers help leaders develop skills through regular criti- cism and feedback (Chaleff, 1995; DeRue & Wellman, 2009). Followers may work as part- ners, participants, and coleaders (Chaleff, 1995) to shape organizational leadership (Kelley, 1992; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). In traditional leadership research, followers

have long been the recipients of leader influence in such a way that leaders are casual agents for followers’ characteristics and behaviors (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). However, several researchers have demonstrated “reverse” causal- ity in leader–subordinate behavioral relationships (e.g., Barrow, 1976; Farris & Lim, 1969; Lowin & Craig, 1968; Sims & Manz, 1984). Although these early studies suggest that subor- dinates’ performance and behaviors can influence leaders’ behaviors and their managerial styles, this “reciprocal determinism” approach to lead- ership did not capture much attention until rela- tively recently. For instance, Dvir and Shamir (2003) examined

the followers’ role in shaping their leader’s style. Their findings show that followers’ initial devel- opmental level predicts their leaders’ transforma- tional leadership over time. Carsten et al. (2018) found that followers’ role orientations influence leaders’ perceptions, motivations, and outcomes. More recently, Khan et al.’s (2020) study indicates that followership positively affects transforma- tional leadership behavior through the trust in the leader–follower relationship. Camps et al. (2020) found that abusive followership of subor- dinatescausessupervisorstoexperiencelowlevels of interpersonal justice and to respond with abu- sive supervision. Most of this work is consistent with Shamir’s (2007) “reversing the lens” model, which illustrates how followers use their charac- teristics and behaviors to influence leadership and relational outcomes at the workplace within leader–follower/manager–subordinate hierarchies (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018). Despiteincreasingscholarshiponfollowersover

the past two decades, the literature lacks sufficient consideration of how followership affects leader emergence (Day & Dragoni, 2015; DeRue & Myers, 2014; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). In particular, there is scant empirical evidence of how follower- ship in a leaderless working unit allows individuals to emerge as team leaders. In this research, we seek

to articulate how followers’ effective followership can create leaders in a nonhierarchical context. We propose a conceptual model illustrating how effec- tive followership can affect an individual’s leader- ship behaviors and leadership self-identity, and further decide the member’s leadership role in the team. By using multiphase data collected from 58 self-managing student teams, we find that followers are critical for an individual to obtain leadership status due to the influence of their effective followership upon leadership behaviors and the prospective leader’s leadership self- identity. We believe this research contributes to the

followership literature by providing empirical support for a framework where leader emergence is a constructive process involving all team members (Kelley, 2008; Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Through the “bot- tom-up” lens of followership, our study extends Shamir’s (2007) “reversing the lens” model in the nonhierarchical context and explores the cogni- tive and behavioral factors associated with leader emergence in self-managing teams. In particular, effective followership shapes the ways prospec- tive leaders see themselves and behave toward others. This research also demonstrates that lead- ership in groups is a result of coordinated choices made by both leaders and followers. As such, we explain why full participation of team mem- bers in leading a self-managing team is “a rare accomplishment” (Offermann & Scuderi, 2007). Our findings support the notion that some team members are more likely to become leaders throughout the team process (Crossman & Crossman, 2011).Asaresult, thisstudyfacilitates a more expanded and dynamic view of team leadership.

Followers and Their Impact Upon Leader Emergence

Previous research demonstrates that followers influence leaders through a variety of proactive behaviors such as obedience, resistance, and rejection (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Higgins et al., 2003). Followers might take an active role to complement and support leadership, an independent role to substitute for leadership, or a shifting role to alternate between leadership and followership (Howell & Méndez, 2008). Additionally, followers further direct and drive

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 305

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

leadership effectiveness and organizational out- comes (Carsten et al., 2010; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). For instance, followers grant permission for those with shared goals to be the designated leader as a means of influencing the group’s objectives. If the leader violates the group norms or attempts to shift to an undesired direction, the followers might revoke the leader’s power, trans- fer authority to a more amenable individual or just choose to leave (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Chaleff, 1995; DeRue, 2011; Kelley, 1992). Kelley (1988, 2008) described five basic styles

of followers: the sheep, the yes-people, the alien- ated, the pragmatics, and the star followers. The “sheep” and “yes-people” are usually “passive and uncritical, lacking in initiative and sense of responsibility” (Kelley, 1988, p. 3). Alienated followers are cynical and passive with disruptive energy in organizations. They might refuse to offer solutions to problems in the workplace even if they have the capacity to help. Pragmatic followers are chameleonic and adept at surviving changes to avoid risk and maintain the status quo. Effective followers demonstrate self- management, commitment, competence, focus, and courage (Kelley, 1988). They actively coop- erate with their leader in achieving organizational goals and facilitating leader–follower interaction for healthy and sustainable leadership develop- ment (Howell & Méndez, 2008). Kelley (1992) further conceptualized two dimensions to outline followership behaviors: independent critical thinking and active engagement. Followers who are high in independent critical thinking tend to voluntarily innovate, analyze information, develop independence, and influence their lea- ders. Followers who are high in active engage- ment eagerly participate in group activities, offer helpful contributions, and support coworkers. Effective followers are those who are high in both active engagement and independent critical thinking. Followership occurs when individuals see

themselves as followers and allow for the influ- ence of leaders. In this study, we refer to effective followership as the behaviors enacted from the standpoint of an effective follower role or in the act of effective following (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Since leadership construction, by nature, is a social process through which potential leaders gain acceptance and recognition of others (DeRue, 2011), we suggest that the followers’ effective followership

is essential to leader emergence (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Effective followers usually see themselves as “partners or co-contributors to the leadership process” (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018, p. 199). They may question and challenge leaders con- structively when assisting in decision-making and problem-solving (Carsten et al., 2018; Kelley, 1988). Efforts made by effective fol- lowers during the early stages of self-managing teamwork help role clarification in teams and facilitate the shared group ideas about potential leaders based upon the needs of the work unit. Hogg and associates suggested that individuals are mostly viewed as matches to context-specific prototypes, redefining their collective self in terms of group membership (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). As the in-group prototype emerges from group interaction, indi- viduals assimilated to such prototypes may attract more social attention,cyclicallyleading to greater association with prototypical positions in a group context (Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2012). Accord- ingly, when conforming to effective followers’ normative behaviors, the prospective leaders attract consensual in-group support that would eventually allow their leadership to become more salient to the group. On the contrary, if indivi- duals choose not to project sufficient effective followership, their leaders may not perceive the effectiveness of their influence.These nonfollow- ing situations could disrupt the leaders’ leading attempt, cause a power struggle among the team members and consequently attenuate emergent leadership in the team (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Based on the previous rationale, we propose

the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Effective followership of team members is positively related to the leadership emergence of their prospective leader(s) in a self-managing team.

The Role of Leadership Behavior

In a leaderless group context, group members seek to reduce uncertainty by making sense ofpronouncedbehaviorsofindividualswithsalient prototypical properties (Hogg, 2001). Leadership behaviors are the types of behaviors used by a leader in interactions with subordinates and other people to influence their attitudes, performance, and activities in the work unit (Yukl, 2012; Yukl &

306 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Gardner, 2020). Since leadership is in the eyes of beholders (Meindl, 1995; Schyns & Sanders, 2007), people tend to compare the traits and beha- viors of a focal individual with their leadership cognitive schema (Lord et al., 1984). When an individual behaves more like a leader, peers are more easily able to observe and perceive his or her leadership behaviors, thus stimulating their mental matching process between the prospect and attri- butes of a preexisting leader prototype (Epitropaki et al., 2013). When people find a match between the traits and behaviors of a focal individual and their leadership cognitive schema, they attribute leadership status to that individual (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). If a prospective leader is looking to change the

leaderless condition in the group, he or she needs to display more leadership behaviors to exercise influence upon others (Hogg, 2001; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Effective followership could encourage an individual to perform more leader- ship behaviors and facilitate their leader emer- gence in a self-managing team. Effective followers are hardworking, dedicated, positive, reliable, and tend to match a leader’s performance expectations of prototypic followers (Sy, 2010). Carsten et al. (2018) suggest that effective fol- lowership behavior is positively related to lea- der’s motivation toward the leadership position. Although effective followers may sometimes express criticism or resistance, such behaviors could motivate prospective leaders to behave more saliently as leaders for a public endorsement of their status within a team (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The inactivity of passive followers, instead, may add extra work and responsibilities to their leader(s), and deplete leaders’ energy and motivation (Carsten et al., 2018). Because pas- sive followers treat any prospective leader with deference and compliance, leaders might also be discouraged and confused about how to practice appropriate leadership behaviors (Howell & Méndez, 2008;Uhl-Bien &Carsten,2018). Com- pared with the passive followers who remain silent and hand over all decision-making or problem-solving to their leaders, effective fol- lowers could place their leader(s) in a more proactive status and make the tough managerial work less challenging and time-consuming. Their effective followership initiates more leadership behaviors from their prospective leader(s) that further advance his or her leadership develop- ment within a team.

The previous arguments lead to our second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: An individual’s leadership behaviors mediate the relationship between effective followership of team members and his or her likelihood of being an emergent leader within a self-managing team.

The Role of Leadership Self-Identity

Leadership self-identity refers to an indivi- dual’s self-concept and self-representation that guides thoughts and actions in the leadership domain (Hiller, 2005). Since a leader’s self- concept is based on personal characteristics and group membership (Lord & Brown, 2001), the development of an individual’s leadership self- identity involves the influences of his or her followers (Collinson, 2006; Hiller, 2005). While leaders are traditionally assumed to influence followers’ identities (Haslam & Platow, 2001), followers can also influence leaders’ identities by enacting conformity with or resistance against organizational leadership (Collinson, 2006). Hiller (2005) suggests that leadership self-

identity relates to core self-evaluations, motiva- tion to lead, self-monitoring, and previous leadership experience. Leadership self-identity can develop and be strengthened or activated at different times and conditions (Hiller, 2005). An individual with strong leadership self-identity has high interest in participating in leadership practices to show their abilities in the leadership domain (Hiller, 2005). Since an individual’s leadership self-identity is an internal self-concept linked with public behaviors (Tice, 1992), indi- viduals with high self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to demonstrate leading skills and to perform effective leadership in organizations (Anderson et al., 2008; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). As one aspect of self- concept, leadership self-identity drives one’s desire for recognition as a leader. Individuals begin signaling their abilities and interest in leadership to other group members by acting in ways consistent with the identity (Kwok et al., 2018). Signaling can serve as one form of identification enhancement within the group to attract other members. More social attraction work may actively influence other members’ perceptions, gain their compliance, and eventu- ally result in leadership status (Hogg, 2001).

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 307

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Effective followership facilitates the identity formation of prospective leaders (Hogg et al., 2012). When a leaderless group has effective followers, prospective leaders might attribute the followership of effective followers to their leadershiptraits.Theyaremorelikelytoconstruct an intrinsic leadership identity and separate them- selves(asleaders)fromtherestofthegroup.Once these prospective leaders become more certain in their role, they make greater efforts to enhance their identification with group leaders (Hogg, 2001; Hogg et al., 2012). On the contrary, in the absence of effective followers, prospective leaders struggle to develop and sustain their leadership self-identity because they do not per- ceive and attribute their influence to internal leadership characteristics. If team members are too passive and short of independent, ethical evaluation of qualified candidates, prospective leaders may find difficulty identifying them- selves, thus increasing status-based differentia- tion in self-managing teams. Given the prior discussion, we propose our

third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: An individual’s leadership self-identity mediates the relationship between effective followership and his or her likelihood of being an emergent leader within a self-managing team.

Research Design and Method

Sample and Procedure

To test our model, we collected data from undergraduate students at three large American business schools. The sample consisted of 205 junior and senior business major students, includ- ing 106 males and 99 females. Over 91% of these students were between 20 and 25 years old. The majorityofsubjects(87.2%)hadworkexperience of more than 3 years and 29.8% had managerial experience. The 205 students represented 58 project teams, including 22 four-member teams, 27 five-member teams, and 9 six-member teams. Before recruiting study participants, we re-

viewed the syllabi of upper-level undergraduate courses in management and international busi- ness at these schools and selected 19 course sessions with similar course designs, schedules, teamwork, and group assessments over the

semester. We then coordinated with instructors to assign compatible team projects and to align the timing and intensity of the work. Once the courses began, instructors placed students into self-managing teams with four to six members during the first or second week. Instead of ap- pointing team leaders, the instructors asked stu- dents to manage themselves and develop their own leaders as they completed the projects. Since student groups formed early in the semester, each student had limited opportunities to interact with others in the class, thus reducing the likelihood that preconceived leadership roles would already exist. These student teams remained stable throughout the coursework. The study continued throughout the coursework over one academic semester (14–15 weeks). Each student com- pleted online surveys independently, based on their team experience at three discrete points in time (see Figure 1 for a timeline of data collec- tion). The first data collection occurred between weeks four and five, after students had some preliminary interaction with other members. The second collection happened between weeks 8 and 9, at the midpoint of the semester, after several team assignments and group activities were completed. The last data set, captured from weeks 12 to 13, occurred before final project reports were due. Although 132 student teams voluntarily provided data for this research, we followed Newman and Sin’s (2009) and Hirschfeld et al.’s (2013) approaches and only retained 205 valid subjects from 58 teams whose within-group participation rates exceeded 60% over the three data collection times.

Measure

Effective Followership

We adapted Kelley’s (1992) followership behavior instrument with social network analysis to assess how much exposure to effective follow- ership each individual receives (See Appendix). We took three steps to calculate the impact of effective followership upon every prospective leader, that is, the average of the weighed effec- tive followership behavior of the focal indivi- dual’s followers. In Step 1, we calculated each team member’s

self-assessment of effective followership behav- ior. Based on Blanchard et al.’s (2009) factor analysis of followership, we selected six items

308 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

from Kelley’s (1992) instrument that were highly loaded on active engagement and independent critical thinking, and adapted them to fit the context of student teams. The sample items include “Do you help out other coworkers, mak- ing them look good, even when you don’t get any credit?” and “Do you assert your views on impor- tant issues, even though it might mean conflict with your group or reprisals from your team leader?” Participants responded to items using a 6-point response scale, ranging from 1, never, to 6, always. In Step 2, we focused on assessing the propor-

tional effective followership given by one team member to specific prospective leaders through the weighed network analysis (Opsahl et al., 2010). We first asked each participant to rate the extent to which he or she followed other team members, using a 5-point response scale, ranging from 1, not at all, to 5, very much. This rating showed various degrees of following expressed by an individual toward each of their peers. Such information reflects every partici- pant’s willingness to be led by any of the potential leaders on the team (Carsten et al., 2010; Uhl- Bien & Pillai, 2007). By knowing the overall following scores of an individual given to others, we assessed the exact proportion of his or her following to any of their peers. Based on this ratio, we calculate the shares of one’s follower- ship score in every dyadic relationship. For instance, for a team consisting of n

members: A1, A2, : : : , and An, Rij refers to the following rating given by Ai to peer Aj; k identifies any of possible Ai peers (potential leaders) in this n-member team; Hi refers to Ai’s self-reported effective followership behavior

score; Hij represents Ai’s proportion of effective followership behavior toward Aj. We denote Hij as:

Hij = Hi Rij

P1≤k≤n k≠i Rik

:

In Step 3, we computed the weighted influ- ence of effective followership on each individ- ual. For every team member (as a prospective leader), we averaged peers’ (as their potential followers) proportional effective followership behavior to estimate the aggregative effective followership from the team. For instance, the overall effective followership, Fj, to which individual Aj is subjected, is the average of the weighted effective followership behavior of Aj’s peers as, where k identifies any of possi- ble Aj peers (potential followers) in this n-mem- ber team:

Fj =

P1≤k≤n k≠j Hkj ðn − 1Þ :

The collection of participants’ effective fol- lowership behavior and following scores occurred in the first wave. Cronbach’s α was .93.

Leadership Behavior

We measured this construct by using adapted items from Halpin’s (1957) Leader Behavior Description Questionnaires (LBDQ) (See Appendix). Based on DeRue et al.’s (2012) approach of adapting LBDQ instruments, we chose three items to assess task-related leadership behaviors and three items to assess relational

Figure 1 Timeline of Data Collection

First Data Collection Second Data Collection Third Data Collection

retsemes fo 31-21 keeWretsemes fo 9-8 keeWretsemes fo 5-4 keeW

ecnegreme redaeLroivaheb pihsredaeLroivahebpihsrewolloF

ytitnedi-fles pihsredaeLerocsgniwolloF

Control variables

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 309

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

leadership behaviors. The selected six items are highly loaded on “consideration,” “encourage- ment of standardized procedures and produc- tion,” “friendly interest in follower welfare,” “supportive encouragement of follower contribu- tions,” and “initiating structure” in accordance with Schriesheim and Stogdill’s (1975) LBDQ factor analysis. Sample items include “He/She does personal favors for group members,” and “He/She asks that group members follow stan- dard rules and regulations.” We combined these six items into one single leadership behavior measurement. Using items from the LBDQ scale, each participant rated the frequency (5-point scale, ranging from 1, barely, to 5, almost always) that each of their peers engages in these beha- viors.Next,wecalculated the leadership behavior scores for each team member by averaging the ratings from the peer evaluations. For instance, if an individual worked with four members in their team, he or she would receive four independent peer assessments for each leadership behavior item. The means of the four appraisal values are calculated using leadership behavior scores for that person. Measurement of participants’ leadership behaviors came in the second wave of data collection. Cronbach’s α was .86.

Leadership Self-Identity

We used Hiller’s (2005) four-item self-rated leader identity measure to assess the extent to which leader identity is considered to be descrip- tive of and important to the respondent (Day & Sin, 2011) (See Appendix). Participants rated themselves (ranging from 1, not at all descriptive, to 6, extremely descriptive) based on how accu- rately each statement described their self-assess- ment. Sample items included “I see myself as a leader” and “If I had to describe myself to others, I would include the word “leader”.” In order to capture self-identity in regard to this group (rather than past team experiences), we measured the participants’ leadership self-identity at the second wave of data collection and reminded participants to rate each item based only on their experiences as a member of their respective teams rather than their past experience. Additionally, we chose not to include the item of “I prefer being seen by othersasaleader” inthedataanalysisbecausethis item was designed in Hiller’s (2005) instrument to assess individuals’ self-schema for being a leader, which could be largely derived from

past experience (Cross & Markus, 1994). Cron- bach’s α was .90.

Leader Emergence

We adopted General Leadership Impression (GLI) measures (Lord et al., 1984; Smith & Foti, 1998) and used a leadership network approach to assess this construct (Mehra et al., 2006) (See Appendix). Every respondent was asked to create a list of all team members and evaluate each teammate by responding to one question “To what extent do you consider this person a leader of your team?” (from 1, not at all a leader,to5,verymuchateamleader).Theaverage ratingofallteammatesrepresentstheleaderemer- gence score for each individual. The average number of raters for a focal person is 3.79. Mea- surement of participants’ leader emergence occurred at the last wave of data collection. Although GLI implies the existence of differing impressions ofteamleaders within self-managing teams, weexamined the interrater agreement about leader emergence. We found that the Rwg(j) for leader emergence ranged between 0 and 1, with a median of .62 (average = .52). The intraclass cor- relation (ICC1) and reliability of group mean (ICC2) values of leader emergence were .02 and .08. As early group literature has suggested hetero- geneousviewsofinformalleadersinself-managing teams (e.g., Manz & Sims, 1982; Millikin et al., 2010),wetook acompilation approach tocalculate leader emergence by averaging participants’ rating scoreswiththeassumptionthatindividualorlower- level data does not need to demonstrate consensus prior to aggregation (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). In addition, we con- ducted one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to check the nest effects and found no significant difference between-groups variances for leader emergence (F = 1.09, p > .05).

Control Variables

Although previous literature on leader emer- genceincludes mixedresults onthe importance of gender (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989; Neubert & Taggar, 2004), we do control for gender to mini- mize the effect of seniority in the analysis. Addi- tionally, despite a small range of ages in student samples, approximately 9% of participants are between the ages of 24 and 39, older than the typical age of college students. The absence or

310 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

presence of managerial experience is also con- trolled because of previous findings in the leader development literature showing that past experi- ences help individuals build leadership self- efficacy and leader identity (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Day et al., 2014).

Results

First, we ran a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to examine the overall fit of the measure- ment model. Since leader emergence depends on leadership network approaches, we tested a three-factor measurement model (effective fol- lowership, leadership behavior, and leadership self-identity) which included 15 items. The three- factor measurement model with all latent vari- ables showed good fit indices (χ2 = 201.56, df = 87, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94; RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .05). All manifest variables signif- icantly loaded on their corresponding latent vari- ables (p < .001). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and cor-

relations among observed variables. To analyze the direct effect of effective followership of team members, leadership emergence of their prospec- tive leader(s), and mediation through leadership behavior and leadership self-identity, we used Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS macro (Model 4), with 20,000 bootstrap samples to calculate the 95% confidence intervals. We conducted the anal- ysis with all variables simultaneously. The result of the paths and their standardized coefficient estimates are shown in Figure 2. Hypothesis 1 predicts a positive relationship

between effective followership of team members and leader emergence of the prospective lea- der(s). As expected, the total effect of effective

followership on leader emergence (c path) was significant (β = .42, p < .001). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is supported. Hypotheses 2 and 3 propose that leadership

behavior and leadership self-identity, respec- tively,mediatestherelationshipbetweeneffective followership of team members and their likeli- hood of being an emergent leader within a self- managingteam.InFigure 2,wenotethateffective followership has a significant direct effect on leadershipbehavior(β = .29,p < .001)andlead- ershipself-identity(β = .17,p < .05).Also,lead- ership behavior (β = .43, p < .001) and leadership self-identity (β = .15, p < .05) are positively relatedtoleader emergence. Moreover, the bootstrap procedure reveals an indirect effect of effective followership on leader emergence through leadership behavior (indirect effect = .12, bootstrap bias-corrected 95% CI from .05 to .20). We also find an indirect effect of effective followership on leader emergence through lead- ership self-identity (indirect effect = .03, boot- strap bias-corrected 95% CI from .00 to .06). Because the CIs did not contain zero, the two indirectrelationshipsweresignificant.Thesefind- ings support Hypotheses 2 and 3. Conclusions of our hypothesis tests remain unchanged with or without controlling for age, gender, and manage- rial experience. In summary, the results of our analysis sug-

gest that when an individual receives a high level of effective followership from team members at the beginning of teamwork, this person is encouraged to develop leadership self-identity and to present leadership behaviors in the team process. Consequently, this individual is more likely to emerge as a leader from a leaderless self-managing team.

Table 1 Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender (1 = male) .48 .50 — — — — — — — 2. Age 21.74 2.41 −.02 — — — — — — 3. Managerial experience (1 = have) .27 .45 .02 .20** — — — — — 4. Effective followership 4.66 .90 −.07 −.03 .07 .93 — — — 5. Leadership behavior 4.17 .48 −.09 .06 .09 .29** .86 — — 6. Leadership self-identity 4.53 1.10 .09 −.25** .12 .18** .10 .90 — 7. Leader emergence 3.59 1.03 −.01 .05 .11 .42** .52** .24** —

Note. N = 205. Cronbach’s α is in italic on the diagonal. ** p < .01.

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 311

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Contributions and Limitations

This study contributes to the leadership and team literature by demonstrating that both cogni- tive and behavioral factors are critical for under- standing how individuals emerge as leaders in self-managed teams. Our proposed model com- plements existing leader emergence research by describing the contribution of followers’ effec- tive followership to intragroup leadership devel- opment. Building on early scholars’ claims of “understanding followers is as important as understanding leaders” (Howell & Shamir, 2005, p. 110), this research explains why fol- lowers matter to the creation of leaders. By pre- senting some of the first empirical investigation into the impact of followership behavior upon leader emergence, we illustrate how effective followership influences leadership behavior and leadership self-identity of prospective leaders. Our study complements the current team leader- ship literature by taking a balanced view of

followership and leadership to explain the dynamic, fluid, and relational nature of leadership development (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018). Additionally, this research is among the few

attempts to explain why leadership varies in self- managing teams. Since the emergence of a team leader(s) is a result of coordinated choices made by followers and leader(s), a self-managing team can exist as centralized leadership with a single individual, shared leadership among all group members, or some intermediate configuration (DeRue, 2011). The followership perspectives adopted in this research also demonstrate how leadership structures emerge in a bottom-up fash- ion, including a weak identity context, and under- line the notion that leadership is the collective responsibility of all members (Wellman, 2017). Findings from this study have several impor-

tant implications for managerial practice in team- based organizations. First, organizations should consider purposefully increasing interdependent

Figure 2 A Multiple Mediator Model of the Relationship Between Effective Followership and Leader Emergence Through Leadership Behavior and Leadership Self-Identity

c = .42***

.15*

.43***

.17*

.29***

c = .27*** Effective Followership

Leadership Behavior

Leadership Self-identity

Leader Emergence

Effective Followership

Leader Emergence

Note. c = total effect; c′ = direct effect. * p < .05. *** p < .01.

312 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

team member activities to facilitate leadership development. Our findings suggest that followers contribute to leader emergence by influencing prospective leader(s) behaviors and self-identities. It is hard to imagine that influence could be achievedwithoutsufficientconnectionsinagroup. Thus, organizations could design projects involv- ing more joint effort and collaborative work that enable team members to enact effective follower- ship throughout the team process. Additionally, organizations need to encourage the expression of authentic opinions (even critical inputs) about managers’ behaviors and performance. Our research points to the importance of effective followers and their traits of both active engage- ment and independent critical thinking in support oftheirleader(s).Althoughcomplimentsandcom- pliance could be pleasing to leaders, individuals cannot gain a clear understanding of their leader- ship effectiveness unless constructive feedback is available. Organizations should reward effective followership in the workplace and motivate more employees to take a collective responsibility of helping develop new leaders. Finally, organiza- tions could implement leader development pro- grams and pair them with followership development programs to provide 360° feedback given by subordinates, colleagues, and supervi- sors.Organizationsmayderivesubstantialbenefits from cultivating effective followers and prospec- tive leaders concurrently. Timely leadership assessments from multiple resources, especially from followers, may help potential leaders better understand their leadership style and wisely use power for organizational effectiveness (Chaleff, 2008). This study has several limitations. First, the

sample consists of undergraduate student teams in universities. The results from student partici- pants may not generalize to working teams in real organizations. Second, student’s academic engagement and performance may influence their assessment of self-identities and leading– following interactions. Although we attempted to minimize the differences in the team-based learning experience, we suggest that future re- searchers could include robust multilevel designs with a large sample to assess the relationship between leadership and followership at different levels. In our study, we also observed that team members might not always agree on the team leader(s), reflected as a low interrater agreement among team members concerning leader

emergence. We suggest further research on deter- minants of opinions of informal leaders when members are practicing shared leadership or self-management in teams. Additionally, the con- trols and variable manipulations incorporated to prevent extraneous interference in this study are somewhat limited. Finally, although we identify paths to leader emergence, we do not specifically test or examine the recursive relationship between leadership and followership. For instance, fol- lowers and leaders could dynamically influence each other’s behavior and self-identity throughout the team process. Previous leadership develop- ment literature suggests leading and following as a complex claiming-granting adaptive process in which interactions stimulate the construction of leader and follower identities (DeRue, 2011; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2018).Furtherresearch maydeterminehow causal inferences from leadership and followership may integrate with our model. For instance, researchers may consider introducing cross-lagged design or experimental approaches to assess the causality between leadership and followership behaviors among team members, as well as a gradual transi- tion from followers to leaders or vice-versa. Nev- ertheless, despite these limitations, we believe that the three-wave survey design for examining the relationship of effective followership, leadership self-identity, leadership behaviors, and leader emergence makes a distinct contribution to the literature. We hope that this study provides helpful in-

sights for future research. Our research suggests that members construct roles throughout the team process.Leadershipandfollowershipmayshiftor coexist conditionally in the same person. Further work may evaluate competencies of group mem- ber’s abilities to influence the exchange of lead- ership and followership roles in the work of the group. Researchers could assess how individuals manage the potential conflict between leader and follower identities due to the complexity and pluralism of multiple subidentities within a per- son (Day & Harrison, 2007). In addition, the current literature is still limited in describing how individuals are motivated to produce effec- tive followership (Kelley, 2008) and how indivi- duals prioritize leadership and followership throughout their leadershipdevelopment process. Nonhierarchical organizations and self- managing teams remain a potential context for this type of research. Further organizational

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 313

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

studies may focus on the relationship between effective followership development and proac- tivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008). We hope that this research encourages further investigation of the role of followers in the leader emergence process.

References

Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 595–608. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.003

Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor’s new clothes. Harvard Business Review, 76, 98–105.

Barrow, J. C. (1976). Worker performance and task complexity as causal determinants of leader behavior style and flexibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 433–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010 .61.4.433

Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150902888718

Camps, J., Stouten, J., Euwema, M., & De Cremer, D. (2020). Abusive supervision as a response to fol- lower hostility: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4058-0

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

Carsten,M.,&Uhl-Bien,M.(2012).Followerbeliefsin the co-production of leadership: Examining upward communication and the moderating role of context. ZeitschriftfürPsychologie,220(4),210–220.https:// doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000115

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Huang, L. (2018). Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior. Leader- ship, 14(6), 731–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1742715017720306

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.leaqua.2010.03.015

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. Berrett-Koehler.

Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67–87). Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E., Jr. (1994). The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi- experiment. Human Relations, 47(1), 13–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700102

Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., Jr., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643– 676. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679604900506

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.12.005

Cordery, J. L., Mueller, W. S., & Smith, L. M. (1991). Attitudinal and behavioral effects of autonomous group working: A longitudinal field study. Academy of Management Journal, 34(2), 464–476. https:// doi.org/10.5465/256452

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Self-schemas, possible selves, and competent performance. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.3.423

Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualis- ing followership–A review of the literature. Lead- ership, 7(4), 481–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1742715011416891

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership develop- ment: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych- 032414-111328

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E. , & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua .2013.11.004

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership develop- ment. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr .2007.08.007

Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader development: Chart- ing and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(3), 545–560. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.011

Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leader- ship in the plural. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 211–283. https://doi.org/10.5465/ 19416520.2012.667612

DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive pro- cess.ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior,31,125– 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. The Academy

314 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https:// doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627

DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. C. (2009). Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 217– 236). Routledge.

DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. In D. Day (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 832–855). Oxford University Press.

DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Workman, K. (2012). A quasi-experimental study of after-event reviews and leadership development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 997–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028244

DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback avail- ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859– 875. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015317

Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E., & Oh, I. S. (2009). Understanding managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental opportu- nities in predicting managerial competencies. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 52(4), 731–743. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.43669936

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmen- tal characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 14(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10 .1016/S1048-9843(03)00018-3

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and follow- ership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005

Farris, G. F., & Lim, F. G., Jr. (1969). Effects of performance on leadership, cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction, and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(6), 490–497. https:// doi.org/10.1037/h0028666

Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Voelpel, S. C., & van Vugt, M. (2019). It’s not just what is said,but when it’s said: A temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in self-managed teams. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 717–738. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0149

Goktepe, J. R., & Schneier, C. E. (1989). Role of sex, gender roles, and attraction in predicting emergent leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 165– 167. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.165

Grant, A., & Ashford, S. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob .2008.04.002

Halpin, A. W. (1957). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire. Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, the Ohio State University.

Haslam,S.A.,&Platow,M.J.(2001).Thelinkbetween leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1469–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711008

Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press Publications.

Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. G. (1999). Co-leaders: The power of great partnerships. John Wiley.

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

Hiller, N. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity: Constructs, correlates, and outcomes. The Pennsylvania State University.

Hirschfeld, R. R., Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., & Rizzuto, T. E. (2013). Voluntary survey completion among team members: Implications of noncompli- ance and missing data for multilevel research. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 454–468. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0031909

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327957PSPR0503_1

Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III. (2012). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and concep- tual developments. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 258–304. https://doi.org/10 .1080/10463283.2012.741134

Howell, J., & Méndez, M. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and or- ganizations (pp. 25–40). Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. The Academy of Manage- ment Review, 30(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10 .5465/amr.2005.15281435

Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. (2010). Identity as narra- tive: Prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transi- tions. The Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.1.zok135

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 315

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 87(4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.87.4.765

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, 141–148.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and fol- lowers who lead themselves. Doubleday/Currency.

Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The artoffollowership:Howgreatfollowerscreategreat leaders and organizations (pp. 5–16). Jossey-Bass.

Khan, S. N., Abdullah, S. M., Busari, A. H., Mubushar, M., & Khan, I. U. (2020). Reversing the lens: The role of followership dimensions in shaping transformational leadership behaviour; mediating role of trust in leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 41(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2019-0100

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multi- level approach to theory and research in organiza- tions: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.

Kwok, N., Hanig, S., Brown, D. J., & Shen, W. (2018). How leader role identity influences the process of leader emergence: A social network analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(6), 648–662. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.003

Langfred, C. W., & Moye, N. A. (2004). Effects of task autonomy on performance: An extended model con- sidering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.934

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The Leader- ship Quarterly, 12(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10 .1016/S1048-9843(01)00072-8

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378. https://doi.org/10 .1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 591–615. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.003

Lowin, A., & Craig, J. R. (1968). The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An

experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of cor- relational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(4), 440–458. https:// doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(68)90020-2

Lührmann, T., & Eberl, P. (2007). Leadership and identity construction: Reframing the leader- follower interaction from an identity theory per- spective. Leadership, 3(1), 115–127. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1742715007073070

Machida,M.,&Schaubroeck,J.(2011).Theroleofself- efficacy beliefs in leader development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 459– 468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811404419

Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierar- chy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. TheAcademyofManagementAnnals,2(1),351–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211628

Magpili, N. C., & Pazos, P. (2018). Self-managing team performance: A systematic review of multi- level input factors. Small Group Research, 49(1), 3– 33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417710500

Manz, C. C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded theory of self-influence processes in or- ganizations. The Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1986 .4306232

Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1982). The potential for” groupthink” in autonomous work groups. Human Relations, 35(9), 773–784. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/001872678203500906

Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team perfor- mance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329– 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8

Millikin, J. P., Hom, P. W., & Manz, C. C. (2010). Self-management competencies in self-managing teams: Their impact on multi-team system produc- tivity. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.001

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2010). Leadership in teams: A functional approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of Management, 36(1), 5–39. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to infor- mal 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

Newman, D. A., & Sin, H. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity of SDWG, CVWG, rWG (J), rWG (J)*, and

316 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

ICC to systematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12(1), 113–147. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1094428106298969

Offermann, L. R., & Scuderi, N. (2007). Sharing leadership: Who, what, when, and why. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leader- ship: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 71–92). Information Age Publishing.

Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet .2010.03.006

Paunova, M. (2015). The emergence of individual and collective leadership in task groups: A matter of achievement and ascription. The Leadership Quar- terly, 26(6), 935–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .leaqua.2015.10.002

Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leader- ship: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Sage Publications.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Stogdill, R. M. (1975). Differ- ences in factor structure across three versions of the Ohio state leadership scales. Personnel Psychology, 28(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.1975.tb01380.x

Schyns, B., & Sanders, K. (2007). In the eyes of the beholder: Personality and the perception of Leader- ship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2345–2363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816 .2007.00261.x

Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspec- tives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix–xxxix). Information Age Publishing.

Sims, H., & Manz, C. (1984). Observing leader behav- ior: Toward reciprocal determinism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 222– 232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.222

Smith, J. A., & Foti, R. J. (1998). A pattern approach to the study of leader emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 9(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1048-9843(98)90002-9

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

Sundstrom, E. (1999). The challenges of supporting work team effectiveness. In E. Sundstrom (Ed.), Supporting work team effectiveness: Best manage- ment practices for fostering high performance (pp. 359–376). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examin- ingthecontent,structure,andconsequencesofimplicit

followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001

Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self- presentation: The looking glass self is also a mag- nifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10 .1037/0022-3514.63.3.435

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654– 676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

Uhl-Bien,M.,&Carsten,M.(2018).Reversingthelens in leadership: Positioning followership in the leader- ship construct. In I. Katz, G. Eilam-Shamir, R. Kark, & Y. Berson (Eds.), Leadership now: Reflections on the legacy of Boas Shamir (pp. 195–222). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479- 357120180000009005

Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in per- sonnel and human resources management (Vol. 18, pp. 137–186). JAI Press.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of follower- ship. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl- Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187–210). Information Age.

Uhl-Bien,M.,Riggio,R.E.,Lowe,K.B.,&Carsten,M.K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organi- zations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03) 25006-1

Wellman, N. (2017). Authority or community? A rela- tional models theory of group-level leadership emer- gence. The Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 596–617. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0375

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088

Yukl, G., & Gardner, W. (2020). Leadership in orga- nizations (9th ed.). Pearson.

Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinacy. Harvard Business Review, 43, 119–131.

Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevelinvestigationofleader-memberexchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.x

(Appendix follows)

HOW FOLLOWERS CREATE LEADERS 317

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .

Appendix

Items for Primary Measures

Followership Behavior [Adapted From Kelley (1992)]

Respondents evaluated statements describing howthey actintheir teamon ascale of1 (never) to 6 (always).

Active Engagement 1. Do you actively develop a distinctive

competence in those critical activities so that you become more valuable to your team leader and the team?

2. Do you take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond your job?

3. Do you help out other coworkers, making them look good, even when you don’t get any credit?

Critical Thinking 4. Do you make a habit of internally

questioning the wisdom of your team leader’s decision rather than just doing what you are told?

5. When your team leader asks you to do something that runs contrary to your pro- fessional or personal preferences, do you say “no” rather than “yes”?

6. Do you assert your views on important issues, even though it might mean conflict with your group or reprisals from your team leader?

Following Score

Respondents listed the name of each team member and answered the question: “To what extent do you follow this person in your team?” (1 = “Not at all”; 2 = “Somewhat”; 3 = “About average”; 4 = “Quite a bit” and 5 = “Very much”).

Leadership Behavior [Adapted From Halpin (1957)]

Respondents listed the name of each team member and choose a number from 1 to 5 repre- senting how frequently each member engages in

the behavior described by the item. (1 = “Barely”; 2 = “Seldom”; 3 = “Occasion- ally”; 4 = “Very often” and 5 = “Almost always”).

Consideration 1. He/She is friendly and approachable. 2. He/She puts suggestions made by the

group into operation. 3. He/She does personal favors for group

members.

Initiating Structure 4. He/She makes sure that his/her part in the

group is understood by all group members.

5. He/She tries out his/her new ideas with the group.

6. He/She asks that group members follow standard rules and regulations.

Leadership Self-Identity [Adapted From Hiller (2005)]

Respondents evaluated statements describing their view of themselves on a scale of 1 (not at all descriptive) to 6 (extremely descriptive).

1. I am a leader. 2. I see myself as a leader. 3. If I had to describe myself to others, I

would include the word “leader.” 4. I prefer being seen by others as a leader.

(not included).

Leader Emergence

Respondents listed the name of each team member and answered the question: “To what extent do youconsider this person a leader of your team?” (1 = “Not at all”; 2 = “Somewhat”; 3 = “About average”; 4 = “Quite a bit” and 5 = “Very much”).

Received June 23, 2020 Revision received March 30, 2021

Accepted April 8, 2021 ▪

318 JIANG, SNYDER, LI, AND MANZ

T h is d oc u m en t is co p y ri g h te d b y th e A m er ic an

P sy ch o lo g ic al

A ss o ci at io n o r o n e o f it s al li ed

p u b li sh er s.

T h is ar ti cl e is in te nd ed

so le ly

fo r th e p er so na l u se

o f th e in d iv id u al

u se r an d is n o t to

b e d is se m in at ed

b ro ad ly .