How can we enhance theory-method alignment when studying collective leadership? We propose that leveraging methodological approaches that are powerful enough to address three primary challenges of collective leadership—the incorporation of time, context, and multiple levels—will promote a more robust body of collective leadership research and practice. In particular, we review and integrate three complementary methodological approaches—organizational discourse analysis, relational event modeling, and dynamic network analysis—which have the flexibility to address these challenges. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the utility of these methodological approaches for addressing major methodological challenges within the field of collective leadership. Through this effort, we aim to facilitate conversation across disparate streams of research and encourage researchers to explore how novel research questions and perspectives might be advanced through leveraging these methods, either in isolation or in combination.

No abstract

Despite the popularity of frame‐of‐reference training (FORT), it is not clear how different structural elements of FORT work in concert to improve rating accuracy. Furthermore, past rater training studies have lacked rigorous control groups leading to low thresholds for showing improvements in rating accuracy due to FORT. The current study allowed for the isolation of components of rater training that increase rating accuracy when compared to a rigorously designed control group. Results indicated that repeated rendering of practice ratings improve rating accuracy and this practice effect was amplified by practice rating feedback. Although accuracy‐based training content improved interrater agreement, it did not contribute to improvements rating accuracy over and above the control group. We discuss the implications of the findings in relation to best practices for designing rater training programs.

Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between “in the lab” and “in the field” when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.

Intrateam competition is an inherently social and interactional process, yet it is not often studied as such. Research on competition is mostly limited to studying it as an individual state and assumes that the resulting team outcomes are equivalent across different competition types. Often overlooked in competition research are the means through which competition can lead to constructive outcomes for the team. Constructive competition occurs when the primary motivation is not to win at the expense of others, but rather to make social comparisons and gain knowledge of relative competence. This study furthers insight into constructive competition by studying its interpersonal characteristics as it develops within a team, and its impact on task conflict, perceived performance, and team satisfaction. The conversations of 24 student project teams were recorded over 4 weeks and analyzed, operationalizing competition as an attempt to exert control and influence on the team. Each individual then provided sociometric ratings of perceived performance of each team member, and rated the level of task conflict and satisfaction of the team. The effects of competition on perceived performance and team satisfaction, both directly and indirectly through task conflict, were examined. Findings demonstrated a negative direct effect of competition on the range of perceived performance ratings, and a positive indirect effect of competition on team satisfaction as mediated through task conflict. The study broadens understanding on the construct of competition and underscores the positive implications competition can bring to the teams.