Emergent Leadership Structures in Informal Groups: A Dynamic, Cognitively Informed Network Model

Abstract

This paper advances novel theory and evidence on the emergence of informal leadership networks in groups that feature no formally designated leaders or authority hierarchies. Integrating insights from relational schema and network theory, we develop and empirically test a 3-step process model. The model's first hypothesis is that people use a "linear-ordering schema" to process information about leadership relations. Taking this hypothesis as a premise, the second hypothesis argues that whenever an individual experiences a particular leadership attribution to be inconsistent with the linear-ordering schema, s/he will tend to reduce the ensuing cognitive inconsistency by modifying that leadership attribution. Finally, the third hypothesis builds on this inconsistency-reduction mechanism to derive implications about a set of network-structural features (asymmetry, a-cyclicity, transitivity, popularity, and inverse-popularity) that are predicted to endogenously emerge as a group's informal leadership network evolves. We find broad support for our proposed theoretical model using a multi-method, multi-study approach combining experimental and empirical data. Our study contributes to the organizational literature by illuminating a socio-cognitive dynamics underpinning the evolution of informal leadership structures in groups where formal authority plays a limited role.

When three’s a crowd: how relational structure and social history shape organizational codes in triads

“…Our finding that acyclicity causes friction in groups composed of strangers is surprising in light of prior work showing human proclivity to form (Carnabuci et al 2018 ) and process hierarchical relationships (Zitek and Tiedens 2012 ). Our results show that acyclicity in structure is by itself not sufficient to cue strangers into a shared definition of the situation.…”

“…Acyclic transitive triads (labeled 030T according to Holland and Leinhardt’s nomenclature) are found more frequently in dominance hierarchies than would be expected on the basis of a dyadic census (Faust 2007 ). They are also seen in organization theory as a central characteristic of formal managerial structures (Bunderson et al 2016 ) and informal leadership structures (Carnabuci et al 2018 ). In a comparison of networks in two organizations, Tasselli and Caimo ( 2019 ) find that dyadic advice relationships across sub-units are more likely to exist within 030T configurations in the formal hierarchical organization.…”

Understanding Work Teams From a Network Perspective: A Review and Future Research Directions

“…For instance, recently, leadership has been understood less as a hierarchy of authority or power and more as a complex interpersonal adaptive process that is socially constructed and driven by interactions within relations (DeRue, 2011). Scholars have adopted network perspectives to explore antecedents of leader emergence (Carnabuci, Emery, & Brinberg, 2018; DeRue et al, 2015; Kwok, Hanig, Brown, & Shen, 2018) as well as consequences of leadership structures (Mukherjee, 2016; Wang, Han, Fisher, & Pan, 2017). Future research can further explore whether a traditional vertical leadership structure can naturally transform into a structure where leader roles can be carried out by multiple individuals in teams (e.g., Fransen, Delvaux, Mesquita, & Van Puyenbroeck, 2018) and, if so, why multiple leaders can arise and how those structures impact team processes and outcomes differently than a solo leader structure.…”

The perception of status: How we infer the status of others from their social relationships

“…Such questions should be explored in future research and possibly with other research designs. Research also could investigate more applied instantiations of status and hierarchies, such as leadership perceptions (Carnabuci et al, 2018).…”

“…Focusing on the perception of networks implies that networks exist as a somewhat subjective phenomenon in the mind, or that people possess their own unique mental representations (Krackhardt, 1987) of the interpersonal relationships (de Klepper et al, 2017;Marineau, 2017;Smith et al, 2012). While the majority of research on this topic has focused on how this subjectivity can lead to heterogeneity in the situational awareness or perception of social ties (Brands, 2013), there is also evidence of variance in a person's understanding or interpretation of a tie even when she is cognizant of a focal relationship (Betancourt & Wezel, 2016;Carnabuci et al, 2018;Flynn et al, 2010;Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994). Thus, even when a person is fully aware of who is connected to whom within a group, differences in individuals' mental representations of a social structure can lead to divergent understandings of the meaning of these connections.…”