870600

research-article2019
SGRXXX10.1177/1046496419870600Small Group ResearchMitchell et al.

Article
Small Group Research
2019, Vol. 50(6) 759­–773
Diminishing Returns © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
of Leadership Behaviors sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1046496419870600
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419870600
on Leadership journals.sagepub.com/home/sgr

Emergence

Tyree David Mitchell1 , Jasmine Hu2,

and Lars Johnson3

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

1Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, USA
2TheOhio State University, Columbus, USA
3Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:
Tyree David Mitchell, Louisiana State University, 286 Coates Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803,
USA.
Email: tyreemitchell@lsu.edu
760 Small Group Research 50(6)

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

With the increasing complexity of tasks and requirement for flexibility in

today’s business environment, self-managed teams, in which members
manage themselves, make task decisions, and solve work-related problems,
have received increased attention (Deloitte University Press, 2016). In the
absence of formally assigned leaders, members in self-managed teams
often emerge as leaders to influence their teams to accomplish shared goals
and promote individual and team performance (Taggar, Hackew, & Saha,
1999; Zhang, Waldman, & Wang, 2012). Team effectiveness theory
(Hackman, 1987, 2002) suggests that for a team to be effective, it needs to
provide enabling conditions that guide team members to coordinate tasks
and foster a helpful interpersonal atmosphere. These task-oriented and rela-
tionship-oriented behaviors are particularly important for self-managed
teams because when there is no formal leader in a team, individual mem-
bers are more dependent on each other and need to more frequently interact,
communicate, and collaborate to accomplish team goals (Cohen, Ledford,
& Spreitzer, 1996). Indeed, research has found that individual team mem-
bers who demonstrate behaviors that coordinate, monitor, and structure
team tasks (task-oriented behaviors; e.g., Eby, Cader, & Noble, 2003; Luria
& Berson, 2013; Walter, Cole, van der Vegt, Rubin, & Bommer, 2012) or
behaviors showing consideration to others (relationship-oriented behav-
iors; e.g., Dobbins, Long, Dedrick, & Clemons, 1990; Wolff, Pescosolido,
& Druskat, 2002) are more welcomed and influential, and more likely to
emerge as leaders.
Despite the expectation and evidence that the influences of task-oriented
and relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence in self-man-
aged teams are linearly positive, the too-much-of-a-good-thing meta-theo-
retical principle (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) suggests that such influences
may be more complex than what is observed throughout the literature. That
is, task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors can be desirable lead-
ership behaviors that link to effective team outcomes up to a point. After
this inflection point, more task-oriented and relationship-oriented behav-
iors do not add additional value to the teamwork and may instead lead to
less favorable outcomes (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013). As Fleishman (1998)
noted, the influences of consideration and structure—types of relationship-
oriented and task-oriented behaviors—on follower outcomes were “clearly
curvilinear, not linear, and hyperbolic, not parabolic” (p. 829). Furthermore,
Mitchell et al. 761

empirical research has mainly examined the influence of either task-ori-

ented or relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence, but little
research has integrated the two perspectives. If both forms are important for
leadership emergence, then only focusing on one but not the other may
result in an incomplete understanding of the behavioral antecedents of lead-
ership emergence.
As such, our research aims to contribute to the literature in three ways.
First, we depart from the prior linear assumption to suggest that the demon-
stration of relationship-oriented and task-oriented behaviors may benefit
individual members’ status and influence in self-managed teams; however, in
extreme amounts, these behaviors can harm rather than benefit their leader-
ship emergence. We thus enable a deeper understanding of the complexity of
the influence of leadership behaviors on leadership emergence. Second, lead-
ership research to date has primarily focused on the independent effects of
behaviors on outcomes, giving little attention to the fact that the effects of
one behavior are often dependent on the performance of other behaviors
(Yukl, 2012). We address this gap by examining the concurrent impacts of the
two main behaviors in relation to leadership emergence. Third, the limited
research on the potential non-linear influences of leadership behaviors has
primarily focused on formally designated leaders’ traits, behaviors, and effec-
tiveness (e.g., Ames & Flynn, 2007; Li, Rubenstein, Lin, Wang, & Chen,
2018). Our research extends this line of research and contributes to the litera-
ture of self-managed teams by examining whether these behaviors are desired
for informal leadership emergence.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Since the 1950s, scholars have recognized the Ohio State studies as the
most extensive research program on effective leadership behaviors
(Chemers, 1997). The Ohio State studies identified two effective behavioral
categories: initiating structure as a task-oriented behavior and consider-
ation as a relationship-based behavior. In a meta-analysis, Judge, Piccolo,
and Ilies (2004) found moderately strong, nontrivial relationships with for-
mal leaders’ behaviors and leadership outcomes such as performance and
satisfaction. Applying this to leaderless team contexts, task-oriented (e.g.,
setting goals, planning, structuring, and monitoring work activities) and
relationship-oriented behaviors (e.g., providing support and encourage-
ment) are also positively related to leadership emergence (e.g., Eby et al.,
2003; Luria & Berson, 2013; Wolff et al., 2002), primarily because they are
able to identify and address the most pressing issues facing a team. The role
of a task coordinator or a socioemotional supporter conforms to
762 Small Group Research 50(6)

individuals’ implicit theories of leadership (Lord, de Vader, & Alliger,

1986; Lord, Foti, & de Vader, 1984); that is, individuals are perceived by
other members to be a leader to the degree that he or she facilitates team
activities toward goal accomplishment and alleviates the team’s social con-
cerns (Hollander, 1961).
The traditional assumption as it relates to the association between effec-
tive member behaviors and leadership emergence is more is better. In fact,
Anderson and Berdahl (2002) noted the following: “Hierarchical positions
in groups are often allocated to group members according to their contribu-
tions: The more group members provide for the group’s goals, the higher the
position they are allocated is” (p. 1373). However, some scholars have
argued that the effects of effective leadership behaviors (i.e., task-oriented
and relationship-oriented behaviors) on leadership emergence may be more
curvilinear than linear in nature (Fleishman, 1995, 1998). Yukl (2012) pro-
vides the specific example of how task-oriented behaviors, such as monitor-
ing the work of others, can come in effective and ineffective forms. Typically,
a team member directly monitors individual member activities or examines
documents or records of work activities to facilitate progress on team activi-
ties. However, when displayed in excessive magnitude, a member’s task
monitoring can be seen as too intense or a sign of lacking trust in one’s
peers’ work. In such cases, excessive task-oriented behavior can come with
reputational or image costs. Accordingly, task-oriented behaviors, such as
taking charge of the decision making for the team, setting goals for others,
and checking team members’ work time, may initially be perceived as valu-
able contributions toward team goal accomplishment, but too much may be
seen as too controlling in the eyes of teammates. We propose that a moderate
amount of task-oriented behavior will create an optimal result for leadership
emergence. When members engage in moderate levels of task-oriented
behaviors, they help the team move forward, facilitate other members to
accomplish their tasks, and promote a better team outcome without appear-
ing too controlling or provoking negative bias.
Similar to task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented behaviors may
also come in both effective and ineffective forms (Yukl, 2012). For
instance, listening carefully to other members’ feelings and concerns, and
asking other members for ideas and suggestions can help individual mem-
bers gain influence and informal leadership positions in their self-managed
teams. However, an excessive amount of relationship-oriented behavior
can result in intrusive and unwelcoming behaviors. Overly considerate
behavior, such as constantly seeking input from team members who might
not be willing to or comfortable of making important decisions for the
team, can result in ineffective outcomes and negative evaluations.
Mitchell et al. 763

Therefore, relationship-oriented behaviors, such as seeking input from

others in the team, validating ideas, and listening carefully to concerns,
may initially be perceived as addressing the primary social concerns of the
team, but too much may be seen as a sign of indecisiveness or ineffective-
ness. We expect that when members engage in moderate levels of relation-
ship-oriented behaviors, they are most likely to emerge as informal leaders
because their behaviors help establish mutual trust and respect with other
team members, build team solidarity, and satisfy inter-member relations
without appearing passive or provoking negative bias. Thus, we predict
the following:

H1a: There is a curvilinear relationship between task-oriented behaviors

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

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

Procedures
Participants completed the Iliad Assessment Center (Bommer & Bartels,
1996), a 150-min developmental assessment center, for partial course credit.
Participants were randomly assigned to leaderless teams. Participants com-
pleted prework (i.e., reading of background material including annual reports)
before the start of the assessment center. Upon arrival at the assessment cen-
ter, participants were assigned to the role of a functional manager in a ficti-
tious company whereby all participants were working at the same hierarchical
764 Small Group Research 50(6)

level in the organization. Participants completed a series of demographic

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

Measures
Task-oriented behaviors. Individual task-oriented behaviors were assessed
using a behavioral checklist (Reilly, Henry, & Smither, 1990) by two inde-
pendent raters based on videotapes of the leaderless exercises. The items on
the checklist described the extent to which individual team members directed
and organized team tasks toward achieving the goals of the team. Five behav-
iors in particular were assessed including defining the decision criteria, clari-
fying team tasks, monitoring time, checking for a common understanding,
and documenting the discussion (Walter et al., 2012). Scores ranged from 0
(the behavior was not performed at all) to 2 (the behavior was performed to
a great extent). Scores were added to provide a single rating for each partici-
pant and then averaged across exercises.
Mitchell et al. 765

Relationship-oriented behaviors.  Similar to task-oriented behaviors, relation-

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

Leadership emergence.  We used peer-ratings to assess team members’ emer-

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

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

Analytical Strategy
Considering that participants were nested within teams, we used multilevel
modeling in SAS 9.4 to test study hypotheses (hierarchical linear modeling
(HLM); Raudenbush & Bryk, 2001). We grand-mean centered all continuous
Level 1 and Level 2 variables (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) and used the
766 Small Group Research 50(6)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of Study Variables.

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

Note. N = 507.
Student sample: 0 = undergraduates at University 1, 1 = MBA students at University 2.
Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.
*Correlations greater than or equal to |.09|, p < .05; **Correlations greater than or equal to
|.12|, p < .01; ***Correlations greater than or equal to |.15|, p < .001 (two-tailed).

centered variables as the basis to create our quadratic and interaction terms.
We first ran a null random-intercept model to assess the degree of between-
group variability in leadership emergence, τ2 = 0.06, SE = 0.02, ICC(1) =
.18, p < .001. Next, to examine the effects of control variables on leadership
emergence, we ran a model that only included covariates (i.e., team size,
student sample, gender). Subsequently, to examine the curvilinear effects of
leadership behaviors on leadership emergence, we ran a model that included
the linear and quadratic terms for both task-oriented behaviors and relation-
ship-oriented behaviors. We calculated a pseudo-R2 value to better under-
stand the variance explained by each model (Snijders & Bosker, 1999).
Moderation was determined by calculating inflection points (Weisberg,
2005): –linear estimate/2 × quadratic estimate.

Results
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations among
the study variables. H1a and H1b predicted that the relationships between lead-
ership behaviors (i.e., task-oriented and relationship-oriented behaviors) and
leadership emergence would exhibit patterns of diminishing returns. In particu-
lar, we expected team members to suffer diminishing returns in terms of leader-
ship emergence as leadership behaviors were performed at extremely high
levels. As indicated in Table 2, when the curvilinear effects of both leadership
behaviors were included in the same model, results suggest that a curvilinear
relationship exists between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership
emergence (γ = −0.12, p < .001), but not task-oriented behaviors
Mitchell et al. 767

Table 2.  Results of Curvilinear Effects of Leadership Behaviors.

Model 1 Model 2

Variable γ SE Pseudo-R2 γ SE Pseudo-R2

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

Note. N = 507 at Level 1. N = 105 at Level 2. Entries are estimates of fixed effects with
robust standard errors.
Student sample: 0 = undergraduates at University 1, 1 = MBA students at University 2.
Gender: 0 =female, 1 = male.
†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

and leadership emergence (γ = −0.01, ns). Figure 1 shows the form of the
curvilinear effects of relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership emergence.
The relationship between relationship-oriented behaviors and leadership emer-
gence shows a positive, concave downward curve, which supports a diminish-
ing returns model (Aiken & West, 1991). The inflection point was .88 SD above
the mean of relationship-oriented behaviors. Thus, our results provide support
for H1b not H1a.

Discussion
Our findings extend existing theory and establish an agenda for future leader-
ship research on self-managed teams. Indeed, our results further support the
notion that the associations between relationship-oriented and task-oriented
behaviors and leadership emergence are positive and linear. However, as noted
by Judge and colleagues (2004), the field of leadership has largely ignored
potential nonlinearities in the validity of task-oriented and relationship-ori-
ented behaviors. We theorized and provided empirical support for a diminish-
ing returns model of relationship-oriented behaviors in self-managed teams.
768 Small Group Research 50(6)

Figure 1.  Diminishing returns of relationship-oriented behaviors on leadership

emergence.

Our results confirm Judge and colleagues’ (2004) belief that “linear and non-
linear effects can coexist” (p. 46). Specifically, our results suggest that rela-
tionship-oriented behaviors are beneficial up to a certain point (i.e., the point
of inflection was .88 SD above the mean of relationship-oriented behaviors),
but excessive behavior may result in negative bias of a team member’s leader-
ship ratings. Stated differently, relationship-oriented behaviors can be either
assets or liabilities for leadership emergence, depending on the degree to
which such behaviors are performed. Thus, we offer a more balanced perspec-
tive that recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses of leadership behaviors
in self-managed teams and answer calls for research that examines when spe-
cific behaviors are over- and under-utilized (Judge et al., 2004; Yukl, 2012).
Unexpectedly, we do not find the influence of task-oriented behaviors on
leadership emergence to be curvilinear. The main, linear impact of task-ori-
ented behaviors on leadership emergence was significantly positive, which
was consistent with prior research findings (e.g., Walter et al., 2012; Wolff
et al., 2002). The results imply that the curvilinear effects of relationship-
oriented behaviors appear to be much more potent than the curvilinear effects
of task-oriented behaviors in self-managed teams. Judge and colleagues
(2004) observed similar findings in that meta-analytic correlations of rela-
tionship-oriented behaviors demonstrated stronger relationships with subjec-
tive criteria (e.g., leadership perceptions) than task-oriented behaviors. Given
that relationship-oriented behaviors are likely to engender mutual feelings of
trust and respect more so than task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented
behaviors are more likely to have a stronger influence on leadership percep-
tions. This also is consistent with the notion that interpersonal factors (e.g.,
warmth) tend to influence personal perceptions faster than task-related
Mitchell et al. 769

factors (e.g., competence) in temporary team settings (Cuddy, Glick, &

Beninger, 2011). However, we encourage future research to replicate our
findings on the concurrent impacts of relationship-oriented and task-oriented
behaviors on leadership emergence.

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

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the design of the current study highlights several strengths of
this research such as using data collected from different sources (peers and
trained assessors) and via different methods (survey and video records), it
is important to recognize its limitations, which points to fruitful future
directions. First, considering the study sample, we acknowledge that our
findings may not apply to all types of self-managing teams. Future research
should consider examining the curvilinear effects of leadership behaviors
in various types of self-managing teams (e.g., manufacturing vs. consult-
ing teams). Notwithstanding, assessment centers offer high-fidelity con-
texts for examining leadership behaviors (Thornton & Cleveland, 1990).
Second, by proposing an optimal midrange for task-oriented behaviors and
relationship-oriented behaviors as it relates to leadership emergence, our
research calls into question our understanding of situationally appropriate
levels of leadership behaviors for leader emergence. Future investigations
should examine how team members adapt their leadership behaviors to
changing circumstances (Yukl, 2012) and determine the importance of
behavioral flexibility for leadership emergence. Third, although we
intently focused on the curvilinear effects of task-oriented and relation-
ship-oriented behaviors, leadership also contains other categories of
behaviors (e.g., change-oriented behaviors). We encourage researchers to
examine the curvilinear effects of other categories of leadership behaviors
on leadership emergence.
770 Small Group Research 50(6)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

ORCID iD
Tyree David Mitchell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0782-9634

Note
1. Leadership emergence scores for the customer service and selection meeting
were highly correlated (r = .64, p < .001).

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ames, D. R., & Flynn, F. J. (2007). What breaks a leader: The curvilinear rela-
tion between assertiveness and leadership. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 307-324. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.307
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the
effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83, 1362-1377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
Bommer, W. H., & Bartels, L. K. (1996). The Iliad assessment center. Bloomington,
IN: Tichenor.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams:
An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. The Academy of
Management Journal, 50, 1217-1234. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.20159921
Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model
of self-managing work team effectiveness. Human Relations, 49, 643-676.
doi:10.1177/001872679604900506
Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and
competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 31, 73-98. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004
Deloitte University Press. (2016). Global human capital trends 2016: The new orga-
nization: Different by design. Retrieved from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/HumanCapital/gx-dup-global-human-capital-
trends-2016.pdf
Mitchell et al. 771

Dobbins, G. H., Long, W. S., Dedrick, E. J., & Clemons, T. C. (1990). The role of
self-monitoring and gender on leader emergence: A laboratory and field study.
Journal of Management, 16, 609-618. doi:10.1177/014920639001600306
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 685-710.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685
Eby, L. T., Cader, J., & Noble, C. L. (2003). Why do high self-monitors emerge as
leaders in small groups? A comparative analysis of the behaviors of high ver-
sus low self-monitors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1457-1479.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01958.x
Fleishman, E. A. (1995). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in
leadership research. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The
multiple-level approaches (pp. 51-60). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Fleishman, E. A. (1998). Patterns of leadership behavior related to employee griev-
ances and turnover: Some post hoc reflections. Personnel Psychology, 51, 825-834.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1998.tb00740.x
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear
models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623-641. doi:10.1177/014920639802400504
Hollander, E. P. (1961). Emergent leadership and social influence. In L. Petrullo, &
B. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior (pp. 30-47). New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of
consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 36-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Li, G., Rubenstein, A. L., Lin, W., Wang, M., & Chen, X. (2018). The curvilinear
effect of benevolent leadership on team performance: The mediating role of
team action processes and the moderating role of team commitment. Personnel
Psychology, 71, 369-397. doi:10.1111/peps.12264
Lievens, F. (1998). Factors which improve the construct validity of assessment cen-
ters: A review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 141-152.
doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00085
Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the rela-
tion between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of
validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & de Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categori-
zation theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership per-
ceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
772 Small Group Research 50(6)

Luria, G., & Berson, Y. (2013). How do leadership motives affect informal and for-
mal leadership emergence? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 995-1015.
doi:10.1002/job.1836
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in manage-
ment. Journal of Management, 39, 313-338. doi:10.1177/0149206311410060
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications
and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Reilly, R. R., Henry, S., & Smither, J. W. (1990). An examination of the effects
of using behavior checklists on the construct validity of assessment center
dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 43, 71-84. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1990.
tb02006.x
Sackett, P. R., & Wilson, M. A. (1982). Factors affecting the consensus judgment
process in managerial assessment centers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
10-17. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.1.10
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: SAGE.
Taggar, S., Hackew, R., & Saha, S. (1999). Leadership emergence in autonomous
work teams: Antecedents and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52, 899-926.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00184.x
Thornton, G. C., & Cleveland, J. N. (1990). Developing managerial talent through sim-
ulation. American Psychologist, 45, 190-199. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.190
Uggerslev, K. L., & Sulsky, L. M. (2008). Using frame-of-reference training to
understand the implications of rater idiosyncrasy for rating accuracy. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93, 711-719. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.711
Walter, F., Cole, M. S., van der Vegt, G. S., Rubin, R. S., & Bommer, W. H. (2012).
Emotion recognition and emergent leadership: Unraveling mediating mechanisms
and boundary conditions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 977-991. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2012.06.007
Weisberg, S. (2005). Applied linear regression (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., & Druskat, V. U. (2002). Emotional intelligence
as the basis of leadership emergence in self-managing teams. The Leadership
Quarterly, 13, 505-522. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00141-8
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what ques-
tions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 66-85.
doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088
Zhang, Z., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader–
member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team perfor-
mance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 49-78. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.x

Author Biographies
Tyree David Mitchell is an assistant professor in the School of Leadership & Human
Resource Development at Louisiana State University, USA. He holds a PhD in indus-
trial/organizational psychology from DePaul University. His research primarily
focuses on understanding leadership, team and group dynamics, and negotiations.
Mitchell et al. 773

Jasmine Hu is an associate professor of management at the Fisher College of

Business, the Ohio State University, USA. She received her PhD with concentrations
in organizational behavior and human resource management from University of
Illinois at Chicago. Her primary research interests focus on understanding prosocial
leadership and teams.
Lars Johnson is an assistant professor of industrial and organizational psychology at
Wayne State University, USA. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of
Houston and his research interests include leadership, stressor–strain relationships,
and diversity plus inclusion.