New leaders face a challenging task when they take charge of their teams. They have to determine how best to guide the work process, and they must understand how their behaviors will affect the members of their team. This research examines how a newly assigned team leader's status moderates subordinates' reactions to different leadership styles to affect assessments of the leader's self-confidence and effectiveness, and how this impacts team performance. Across 2 experimental studies, results demonstrate that low-status leaders are rated as more effective when they use a directive style, whereas high-status leaders are viewed as more effective when they use a participative style, and this relationship is mediated by perceptions of self-confidence. In addition, teams whose leaders are viewed more favorably perform better on a complex group task. These findings imply that low-status individuals are able to enhance their level of personal power by drawing on whatever positional power they hold, whereas high-status individuals are better off relying solely on their personal power to influence others. This research also provides a clear demonstration that assessments of new leaders' behaviors are subject to an appraisal that is clouded by observers' status perceptions and attributions.

International audienceWe examine the effects of conflict and conflict asymmetry on creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Testing our hypotheses on teams working on graduate-level nanobiotechnology projects, we found task conflict to have a positive relationship with creativity whereas relationship conflict had a negative relationship with creativity. Our results also revealed that relationship conflict asymmetry had a positive effect on creativity. Examining the two components of creativity separately, we found that relationship conflict asymmetry explained variance in the novelty component, whereas task conflict, team size, and functional diversity explained variance in the usefulness component

This study examined how external evaluators' assessments of a management team and its leader are impacted by congruence between the leader's gender and the gender typing of the industry in which the team works. We experimentally tested our theory using industries that are either male typed or gender neutral, with teams led by male and female leaders. Results indicate that performance expectations for the team were more favorable when the leader's gender was congruent with the industry's gender typing, but expectations for the leader were not affected by gender congruence. These findings paradoxically suggest that evaluators form performance expectations for teams based upon individual characteristics of their leaders, even when these characteristics have no effect on the conscious assessments of the leaders themselves.Although women now make up almost half of the U.S. workforce (U.S. Department of Labor, 2005), they still occupy only a minority of leadership positions in the business world, particularly among the biggest corporations. A recent study reports that women hold only 1.8% of the chief executive officer (CEO) positions in the Fortune 500, 16.4% of corporate officer positions, 6.4% of the highest paid positions, and 9.4% of the highest clout positions (executive vice president and above). Furthermore, at the current rate of change, parity in corporate officer ranks will not be achieved for another 40 years (Catalyst, 2006).

In this paper we report the results of two experimental studies designed to test how demographic characteristics affect outsiders' assessments of a firm's top managers. We draw on theories of evaluation and status characteristics to examine the interactive effects of managers' racial characteristics and educational prestige on external perceptions. In the first study, we find that top executives' educational background and race affected analysts' valuation of a firm's stock. Outside analysts made the highest stock price projections for firms led by white executives who had highly prestigious educational backgrounds but made the lowest valuations for firms led by African Americans with the same prestigious education. We posit that the moderating effect of executives' racial characteristics stems from outsiders' assumptions that African American managers received preferential treatment in the admissions process for high prestige universities. In the second study, we find that when we explicitly removed the possibility of preferential selection, analysts gave the same stock valuation to firms led by white and African American executives with high educational prestige. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and management.

No abstract