This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This article has been corrected. See Front Psychol. 2021 August 23; 12: 745910. This article has been corrected. See Front Psychol. 2022 October 06; 13: 913892.The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
It is important to understand the processes behind how and why individuals emerge as leaders, so that the best and most capable individuals may occupy leadership positions. So far, most literature in this area has focused on individual characteristics, such as personality or cognitive ability. While interactions between individuals and context do get research attention, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how the social context at work may help individuals to emerge as leaders. Such knowledge could make an important contribution toward getting the most capable, rather than the most dominant or narcissistic individuals, into leadership positions. In the present work, we contribute toward closing this gap by testing a mediation chain linking a leader's leader self-awareness to a follower's leadership emergence with two time-lagged studies (nstudy1 = 449, nstudy2 = 355). We found that the leader's leader self-awareness was positively related to (a) the follower's leadership emergence and (b) the follower's nomination for promotion and that both relationships were serially mediated by the follower's self-leadership and the follower's leader self-efficacy. We critically discuss our findings and provide ideas for future research.
Keywords: information processing theory, leadership emergence, leader self-awareness, leader self-efficacy, self-leadership, social cognitive theory
Who emerges as a leader and how qualified are they to lead? These questions have long been discussed in the research and practice literature on leadership, given the importance that leaders play in all aspects of society. Thus far, the literature on antecedents of leader emergence, which is the degree to which an individual is perceived by others as being a leader (Judge et al., 2002), has largely focused on individual attributes. More precisely, personality factors like agreeableness (Wyatt and Silvester, 2018) and extraversion (Reichard et al., 2011), as well as dominance (Hegstrom and Griffith, 1992) and narcissism (Nevicka et al., 2011), have been shown to be relevant to predicting leadership emergence. Moreover, knowledge and skills, in terms of emotional awareness/recognition (Walter et al., 2012) and communication (Charlier et al., 2016), as well as identity-related factors, such as leader role identity (Kwok et al., 2018), or leader self-efficacy (Liu et al., 2019), have also been shown to play vital roles in predicting the emergence of leaders.
In our research, we want to shift the focus in examining leader emergence to the context, as recommended by Avolio (2007), because “one can learn most about individual behavior by studying the informational and social environment within which that behavior occurs and to which it adapts” (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978, p. 226). Recent work on the intersection of the individual and their social environment in predicting leader(ship) emergence has included a focus on the role of status (McClean et al., 2018), peer liking (Hu et al., 2019), and leader–member exchange (Zhang et al., 2012). Additional work on antecedents of leadership emergence has shown that network centrality can also play a role in predicting who emerges as a leader (Kwok et al., 2018). While prior work has provided a preliminary foundation for understanding the individual and relational antecedents for leadership emergence, this work does not yet explain how an individual's social environment at work influences their development and whether those developmental gains predict leader emergence.
Contributing toward closing this gap, and following the call from Acton et al. (2019) to understand leadership emergence as a dynamic, interactive process, we explore in two field studies how a leader's inner, self-developmental leadership process can lead to a follower's emergence as a leader through its effect on a follower's leadership development process. We theorize and test how the target leader's leader self-awareness can ultimately lead to (a) the follower's leadership emergence and (b) the follower's nomination for promotion into a leadership position. Specifically, we draw from both social information processing and social cognitive theory to propose how these relationships are both serially mediated by the follower's own self-leadership development and the follower's leader self-efficacy 1 . Figure 1 summarizes the proposed relationships in this research.
Theoretical model. (f), follower-related variable.
Our main theoretical contribution to leader(ship) emergence literature lies in describing how leadership emergence can result from a developmental process involving individual as well as social context variables at the workplace. We consider this an important contribution, since (a) the leadership emergence literature thus far has largely captured a static perspective on antecedents of leadership emergence, and (b) a process-oriented perspective involving multiple components of individuals and their context is of central importance given that leadership results from interactions between individuals and context (Porter and McLaughlin, 2006; Avolio, 2007; Jepson, 2009; Oc, 2018).
Our work also contributes to practice by examining how leaders can positively influence their followers' leadership emergence. Using their influence to promote leadership emergence in their followers, leaders may actively contribute to the emergence of effective and capable leaders, rather than relying upon the most dominant (Hegstrom and Griffith, 1992) or narcissistic (Nevicka et al., 2011) individuals to emerge as leaders.
Explaining the relationship between leader self-awareness and a follower's self-leadership, we rely on Social Information Processing Theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Following this theory, individuals adapt their attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs to their social context. This happens in two ways. First, individuals use the cues of their social environment to construct meaning regarding what are acceptable beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in the particular social context. Second, the social context heightens the salience of certain information and thereby increases its relevance to the individual. In other words, individuals develop their attitudes as a function of the social information that is available to them.
Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) further described that relevant contextual information for attitude and behavior formation at work is, among other factors, a leader's style of supervision. Hence, a leader's behavior and attitude can impact the follower's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. These relationships have already been demonstrated in several previous studies (e.g., Groves and LaRocca, 2011; Steinmann et al., 2018; Farahnak et al., 2020). Thereby, the relevant source of information for attitude formation and behavior is not the leader's behavior or attitude itself but an individual's perception. This is because characteristics of an individual's social context are constructed by them, as they navigate through their daily interactions (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). In short, a leader's attitudes and behaviors as perceived by their follower can impact the follower's decisions and behavior. Building on this, we can outline the relationship between leader self-awareness and follower self-leadership.
Leader self-awareness has been defined based on previous conceptualizations of self-awareness but linking awareness specifically to how a leader views their leadership of others [see Walumbwa et al. (2008)]. More precisely, leader self-awareness refers to leaders “demonstrating an understanding of how one derives and makes meaning of the world and how that meaning making process impacts the way one views himself or herself over time” (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 95). Thereby, leader self-awareness can be observed in terms of specific leader self-awareness behaviors a person who leads exhibits, like seeking feedback to improve interactions with others (Avolio et al., 2018).
Self-leadership is defined as the process of influencing oneself to achieve goals (Houghton and Neck, 2002). Individuals influence and lead themselves by using specific sets of cognitive and behavioral strategies (Neck and Houghton, 2006). These strategies are labeled as (1) behavior focused, (2) natural reward, and (3) constructive thought patterns. First, behavior-focused strategies “strive to heighten an individual's self-awareness in order to facilitate behavioral management” (Neck and Houghton, 2006, p. 271). These behavioral strategies include different elements. For example, the self-leadership process may start with self-observation, which implies being aware of when and why one engages in specific behaviors, which may lead to the individual identifying goals for change. What may follow then is self-goal setting, which refers to setting and working toward specific goals. On the way toward goal achievement, it is important for self-leaders to self-cue or keep track of those goals in order to stay motivated, for instance by using lists, notes, or motivational posts [for more detailed descriptions of the strategies, see Houghton and Neck (2002), Neck and Houghton (2006), Stewart et al. (2011), Stewart et al. (2019)].
Having succeeded or failed at reaching a goal, individuals then engage in the second type of strategy known as natural reward, which refers to building pleasant and enjoyable features into one's work tasks (Houghton and Neck, 2002; Neck and Houghton, 2006; Stewart et al., 2011, 2019). The third self-leadership strategy, constructive thought patterns, refers to evaluating one's beliefs and assumptions, as well as using mental imagery and positive self-talk strategies. Taken together, these strategies describe how individuals gain awareness over their beliefs and behavior and then consciously work toward, and mentally track, the realization of their goals.
We suggest that leader self-awareness, as observed by the follower, may encourage the follower to engage in developing his/her own self-awareness-related aspects of self-leadership, which then motivates self-leadership development. More specifically, followers who observe their leader to be self-aware, should tag self-awareness as being an important attitude and behavior in the respective work context (cf., Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978). Consequentially, followers may feel inspired to heighten their self-awareness as well, which may include those elements of self-leadership that are related to leader self-awareness, such as self-observation, reflecting on and keeping track of their goal achievement and becoming aware of their self-talk and self-imagery. Previous work has provided evidence connecting observed leadership with self-leadership as well. Different from our proposition, these other studies largely focused on empowering leadership (e.g., Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014, 2015) or on the self-awareness component as part of empowering leadership (Tekleab et al., 2008). Building on this, we propose our first hypothesis:
H1: Leader's leader self-awareness is positively related to follower's self-leadership.
Beyond being impacted by one's social context, Social Cognitive Theory suggests that individuals influence their own attitudes and behaviors themselves (Bandura, 1991). For instance, when individuals repeatedly succeed at attaining their goals, or perform well, they develop positive self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura and Adams, 1977; Sitzmann and Yeo, 2013). Self-efficacy beliefs are defined as “people's beliefs in their capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over events in their lives” (Wood and Bandura, 1989, p. 364).
When individuals successfully perform a certain skill or behavior, this does not only increase their self-efficacy beliefs regarding the practiced skill or behavior (e.g., Talsma et al., 2018), but it may also encourage individuals to set higher standards and goals for themselves as they move forward in their work (Wood and Bandura, 1989). For instance, a leader who successfully leads a team of five may consequently feel confident enough to lead a larger team next. In other words, success in one area may expand to self-efficacy toward a more complex challenge. Since self-efficacy relates to what the individual has successfully accomplished in previous experiences, a virtuous circle of self-efficacy and performance develops.
Based on the idea of a self-efficacy/performance virtuous cycle, we suggest that successfully performing as a self-leader may strengthen one's confidence to not just lead oneself but to do so with others as well. Thereby, the confidence to lead others can be expressed in the form of leader self-efficacy. Leader self-efficacy is defined as “leaders' beliefs in their perceived capabilities to organize the psychological capabilities, motivation, (…) and courses of action required to attain effective, sustainable performance across their unique leadership roles, demands, and contexts” (Hannah et al., 2012, p. 144). Self-leadership may increase leader self-efficacy for two reasons. First, self-leadership has been defined as the equivalent of leadership, whereby self-leadership is focused on leading oneself, while leadership is focused on leading others (Furtner, 2017). Hence, self-leadership and leadership can be seen as two constructs that belong generally within the same skill domain. Second, self-leadership has often been considered a precondition for leadership. More precisely, research has argued and shown that self-leadership is a helpful skill in positively contributing to leading others successfully (cf., Drucker, 1999; Lovelace et al., 2007; Furtner et al., 2013). Based on the above arguments, that individuals who successfully lead themselves may feel more confident to lead others, we propose our second hypothesis:
H2: Follower's self-leadership is positively related to follower's leader self-efficacy.
Building on social cognitive theory, previous work could show that individuals not only develop self-efficacy beliefs based on their prior performance but that this mechanism can work the other way around as well (Kroesen et al., 2017; Talsma et al., 2018). More precisely, individuals tend to choose those activities they feel self-efficacious about, such that they choose those activities they believe they can execute successfully (Wood and Bandura, 1989). This belief encourages them to exert more effort and direct more persistence toward that task (Bandura, 1988). For example, it has been shown that creative self-efficacy can enhance one's creativity associated with creative ideation (e.g., Yang et al., 2020).
Extending this to leader self-efficacy, followers with high leader self-efficacy should emerge as leaders. We suggest such a relationship based on previous findings showing that leader self-efficacy predicted leadership emergence (Liu et al., 2019). Hence, we propose our Hypothesis 3a:
H3a: Follower's leader self-efficacy is positively related to follower's leadership emergence.
Combining these arguments with Hypotheses 1 and 2, we propose the following sequential mediation relationship:
H3b: The indirect relationship between leader's leader self-awareness and follower's leadership emergence is mediated by follower's self-leadership and follower's self-efficacy.
Now, completing the theoretical linkages, we suggest that a follower's leadership self-efficacy will not remain unnoticed, improving their chances of being chosen for leadership roles. When individuals feel confident to lead, this may positively impact other people's evaluations of that individual's capability to lead. Such relations have been found in the area of creativity (Gong et al., 2009), whereby an individual's creative self-efficacy was positively related to the same individual's level of creativity, as rated by others.
In a similar vein, leader self-efficacy has been shown to be positively related to other-rated performance and leadership (Hannah et al., 2012). Assuming that leaders do notice their followers' feelings, and displays of confidence in their own leadership, and consider this as being a relevant criterion for promoting a follower into a leadership position, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4a: The follower's leader self-efficacy is positively related to the follower's nomination for promotion.
Combining these arguments with Hypotheses 1 and 2, we propose the following sequential mediation relationship:
H4b: The indirect relationship between leader's leader self-awareness and the follower's nomination for promotion is mediated by follower's self-leadership and follower's self-efficacy.
The sample for Study 1 was recruited through the online panel provider called Kantar, which is an international organization based in London. Kantar has access to a participant pool of several million respondents globally. Selection criteria for our study included (a) holding American citizenship, (b) being aged between 18 and 65, (c) being employed, and (d) agreeing to be recontacted for the second half of the study. Kantar elicited our invited participants for this study via an email to the panel, using a short description of our study. Participation in this study was voluntary, and participants were paid a standard fee for completing the investigation. In order to mitigate single source/common method bias, as well as social desirability effects, we used a 4-week interval between Time 1 and Time 2 data collection. At Time 2, a total of 717 participants completed our survey. After having excluded participants who did not fully answer both surveys, did not pass all attention checks (cf., Paas and Morren, 2018), or showed a particular answer pattern like giving extremely positive or negative answers throughout the survey, our sample resulted in a total number of n = 449 participants.
In the final sample, participants were 20–65 years old (M = 51.33, SD = 11.14), and the majority was female (72.2%). Among the participants, 1.3% did not graduate from school, 18.3% completed vocational education, and 20% held a High School degree. Another 34.5% completed their Bachelor's, 12.9% finished their Master's, and a small percentage of 2.4% held a Ph.D. degree. The majority of participants were working in organizations with up to 200 employees. The size of the organization employees worked in, varied from 2 to 2.2 million employees (M = 28,965.01, SD = 174,747.66). Some individuals had just joined their organizations a few months ago, while others were working in the same organization for up to 43 years (M = 12.01, SD = 10.72). Participants covered a broad range of industries, from health (14.5%), to the educational sector (12.9%), public services (6.9%), and IT (4.5%). While most individuals did not have leadership experience (66.6%), those who were in leadership positions had up to 10 years of leadership experience (58.4%).
In this study, we measured leader self-awareness, self-leadership, and leader self-efficacy as core variables. Thereby, leader self-awareness and self-leadership were measured at Time 1 and leader self-efficacy at Time 2. Furthermore, we included gender as a control variable. We did so because gender has been shown to significantly affect leadership emergence [for a meta-analysis, see Badura et al. (2018)]. Differences in leadership emergence between men and women can, for instance, be traced back to agentic and communal traits (Badura et al., 2018). More precisely, as shown by Badura et al. (2018), women exhibit less agentic traits and, as a consequence, participate less in group discussions, which makes them less likely to emerge as leaders, compared to their male counterparts. Gender differences were not only found with respect to leader and leadership-related variables but also regarding the use of different self-leadership strategies (Bendell et al., 2019).
We measured leader self-awareness with the 4 items from the Leader Self-Awareness dimension of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio et al., 2018), provided by www.mindgarden.com. A sample item is: “My leader shows he or she understands how specific actions impact others.” Cronbach alpha of the scale was α = 0.91. Answers were given on a scale from 1 = not at all to 5 = frequently, if not always.
Self-leadership was captured using the Abbreviated Self-Leadership Questionnaire (Houghton et al., 2012), which is a nine-item measure of self-leadership. A sample item was: “I try to mentally evaluate the accuracy of my own beliefs about situations I am having problems with.” Cronbach alpha was α = 0.90. Participants rated the items on a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Leader self-efficacy was measured with a Leader Self Efficacy Scale (Hannah et al., 2012). More precisely, we chose the Action dimension of the leader self-efficacy scales because it most adequately represented the kind of leader self-efficacy we were interested in testing. This dimension has seven items, and participants rated their efficacy for exhibiting a certain behavior such as: “I energize others to achieve their best.” Cronbach alpha of the scale was α = 0.95. Participants chose a value for each item on a Likert scale between 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.
We tested our hypotheses using structural equation modeling techniques with Mplus version 8 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017). In our analysis, we let the items for each construct load on the respective latent factor and then modeled the direct and indirect paths between the latent constructs. In this study, we calculated a model testing Hypotheses 1 and 2. To control for gender, we regressed self-leadership and leader self-efficacy on gender.
We examined several indicators of model fit. The chi-square value shows exact model fit and should be insignificant to indicate good model fit (Geiser, 2011). However, the chi-square test is sensitive to large sample sizes, making it good practice to complement the chi-square test with additional goodness-of-fit indicators. First, we used the comparative fit index (CFI), capturing incremental fit with values close to 1, indicating that the model explained the data better than an independence model. Values above 0.90 are suggested to avoid accepting miss-specified models (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Second, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) indicates approximate fit, which should be 0.08 or lower (Browne and Cudeck, 1993). Third, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) provides an overall evaluation of the residuals, whereby values close to 0.08 indicate that the observed (co-)variances should be replicable (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Hu and Bentler (1998) suggested that researchers should use a two-index presentation strategy, saying that when the SRMR is close to 0.08 in combination with either CFI (close to 0.95) or RMSEA (close to 0.06), there is a relatively good fit between the model and the data.
We calculated means, standard deviations, and correlations for each scale. Results showed that all correlations between our core variables were significant at p < 0.01. Specifically, correlations were r = 0.38 between leader self-awareness and follower's self-leadership, and r = 0.49 for self-leadership and leader self-efficacy. Beyond this, gender correlated significantly with leader self-efficacy (r = 0.10, p < 0.05), indicating that male participants had higher levels of self-efficacy. Yet, gender did not correlate significantly with any other variable. All results can be found in Table 1 .
Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for Study 1.
