A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships Among Self-Monitoring, Authentic Leadership, and Perceptions of Leadership

Abstract

There is little research examining variability in leadership outcomes over time as a function of individual differences. The present study investigates how the extent to which individuals are perceived as leaders varies over time, with self-monitoring and authentic leadership as predictors. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses found that change in the extent to which individuals were perceived to be leaders by others varied across individuals, but this variability was not due to individuals' self-monitoring, authentic leadership, or declining interrater reliability. It was also found that individuals' overestimation of themselves as leaders increased over time. Finally, an initial measure of authentic leadership was developed.

Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda

“…With respect to sample type, a balanced mixture of private/for profit (e.g., Clapp-Smith et al, 2009), public/government (e.g., , student (e.g., Tate, 2008) and mixed samples (e.g., Walumbwa et al, 2008) was revealed. In comparison to other social science disciplines that have been criticized for overreliance on student samples (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986), the predominance of field samples composed of working adults is a strength of AL research.…”

“…In comparison to other social science disciplines that have been criticized for overreliance on student samples (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986), the predominance of field samples composed of working adults is a strength of AL research. While most (8) of the quantitative studies were conducted in the United States, three used Canadian samples (e.g., Giallonardo et al, 2010), two used Chinese samples (e.g., Walumbwa et al, 2010), one used a sample from Singapore (Toor & Ofori, 2009), one used multiple country samples (Walumbwa et al, 2008), and three did not report the sample location (Brown & Gardner, 2007;Eigel & Kuhnert, 2005;Tate, 2008).…”

Testing a longitudinal model of distributed leadership effects on school improvement

“…A prominent line of inquiry in leadership research has focused on understanding the contributions that leadership makes to organizational processes and performance outcomes (Bass & Avolio, 1994;Gresov, Haveman, & Oliva, 1993;Langlois & Robertson, 1993;Mathieu, Ahearne, & Taylor, 2007;Nissen & Levitt, 2002;Sivasubramaniam, Murry, Avolio, & Jung, 2002;Steers, 1975;Tate, 2008;Teece, 1982;Tushman & Romanelli, 1985). A common approach has been to collect survey data at one point in time that describe the behaviors and activities across a sample of leaders and analyze relationships with selected organizational variables and measures of performance or effectiveness (Bass, 1990;Campbell et al, 1993;Hallinger & Heck, 1996a;Kaiser et al, 2008).…”

Brokering Trust to Enhance Leadership: A Self-Monitoring Approach to Leadership Emergence

“…Critics have tended to perceive the high self-monitoring style of leadership as lacking authenticity (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005) but research has failed to support this proposition (Tate, 2008). Our results show that high self-monitors tend to provide advice to more people than do low self-monitors, and that high selfmonitors appear to be particularly well suited to playing the role of broker between parties that do not trust each other.…”

“…But we still do not fully understand the differences between high and low self-monitoring styles of leadership. If we assume that both low and high self-monitors can develop over time as leaders in the eyes of others (as research shows- Tate, 2008), then the interesting question becomes what leadership behaviors differentiate the two self-monitoring orientations. Brokerage across social divides may appeal to the interests and abilities of high self-monitors whereas strengthening connections among members of a team may appeal to the interests and abilities of low self-monitors (Oh & Kilduff, 2008).…”