The effect of empowering leadership on informal leadership emergence: Leadership development within an international non–profit student organization

leadership emergence: Leadership development

within an international non–profit student

organization

Master thesis

M.Sc. Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 3, 2016 Jonas Börnicke Student number: S2592843 Kornoeljestraat 2K18 9741 JB Groningen j.bornicke@student.rug.nl Tel: +31 (0) 6–591 62 522 Supervisor: Jacoba Oedzes

ABSTRACT

Teams within organizations are currently facing more and more complex tasks. In order to facilitate task completion in the team, not only the team leader needs to display leadership behaviour but also the team members have to take over responsibilities that belonged to the formal leader in the past. Developing leadership skills is not only beneficial for task completion but also for personal and professional development of employees. This study proposes that empowering leadership will lead to team members' intrinsic motivation, which in turn, may lead to the emergence of informal leadership. As empirical findings on the antecedents of informal leadership emergence are scarce, this study seeks to identify whether intrinsic motivation and empowering leadership are predictors of informal leadership emergence among group members. To test the hypotheses, a survey was conducted in a global non– profit student organization. The results display a marginal effect of empowering leadership on intrinsic motivation but no effect of empowering leadership on informal leadership emergence among team members.

INTRODUCTION

In order to stay competitive in the rapidly developing business environment, corporations increasingly rely on teams for managing knowledge and adapting to change (Batt, 2002). Contrary to the established understanding of leadership as a top–down process between the formal leader and team members, research suggests that there can be more than one leader in one team (Mehra, Smith, Dixon & Robertson, 2006). Accordingly, Wolff, Pescosolido & Druskat (2002) found that leadership emergence is getting more important for team success today. One beneficial component of working together in small work teams, is that team members can engage in shared leadership of such teams (cf. Carson, Tesluk & Marrone, 2007; Karriker, 2005; Meindl, Mayo & Pastor, 2002; Pearce & Conger, 2002). Findings from early leadership scholars like Katz & Kahn (1978) already suggested the value of shared leadership to achieve competitive advantages and as a result of these findings, industries today are relying more on self–managed teams for example (Manz & Sims, 1987). Organizations do not believe team leadership is unimportant (Karriker, 2005) but the leadership construct has undergone a shift from a solitary leader to the team as potential source of leadership (Meindl et al., 2002). With team members taking more and more leadership responsibility and showing proactivity, the team may increase performance with more informal leaders, meaning having more informal leaders is better (Neubert, 1999). Individuals appear to like being given autonomy and organizations’ formal leaders can use autonomy–supportive behaviour to increase perceived competence and intrinsic motivation (Deci, Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981) of team members for example. These notions have been used in shared leadership theory to describe a team in which team members fulfil parts or all of the leadership role (Pearce & Conger, 2002).

position in the informal hierarchy, which consists of person–dependent relationships of either dominance and subordination (Diefenbach & Sillince, 2011) that enables informal leaders to exert influence over the other people within the team. This higher informal status is not based on organizational position or authority (Yoo & Alavi, 2004) but achieved by incremental influence and contributing to the team (Hollander, 1960). Furthermore, when individuals believe they are given autonomy and that they can have impact, they are likely to feel less constrained by rules or technical aspects of work (Amabile, 1988). In other words, when the formal leader gives employees autonomy, they are more likely to not only follow all the rules but take responsibility for their own action, even if it does not strictly comply to all rules necessarily. This behaviour can be seen as one aspect of informal leader behaviour.

For this research it is not sufficient to only examine the process of how informal leaders emerge in general, but specifically the effect of the formal leader on the emergence of informal leaders (Zhang, Waldmann & Wang, 2012) in order to identify recommendations and strategies on how to support informal leadership emergence. In that, the formal leader’s choice of leadership style and behaviour are crucial to create an environment in which members are empowered and able to emerge as informal leaders. The formal leader has to empower subordinates by sharing authority and responsibility for work outcomes (Pearce & Conger, 2002) to be able to initiate, create and feel ownership (Rajotte, 1996). This style of leadership has been named empowering leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2002).

antecedent of informal leader emergence and its effect on outcomes like individual and team performance. Following up, the current study seeks to broaden the knowledge about antecedents of informal leadership emergence by not only looking at leader–member relations but the perception of the leader’s behaviour by the team members and how it affects them. This study aims to demonstrate the link between empowering formal leadership and informal leadership emergence and hypothesizes a positive effect of empowering leadership on informal leadership emergence. Research on shared leadership by Kirkman and Rosen (1997) already suggested to examine the predictive power of empowerment on leader emergence and this study picks up on this notion.

In addition, I argue that this relationship is mediated by intrinsic motivation. Empowering leadership motivates employees by giving autonomy or including them in the decision making process (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades & Drasgow, 2000) and former research connected empowering leadership and intrinsic motivation of employees (Spreitzer, 1995). Consequently, when employees are intrinsically motivated to perform well and to make the team perform well, they are likely to engage in informal leadership behaviour in order to reach the best possible outcome for the individual and the team. As emergent leadership behaviours are on a voluntary basis, individuals need to show self–initiative to take over responsibility (Hong, Catano & Liao, 2011). In other words, in order to emerge as an informal leader within a team, you need to be intrinsically motivated to take over responsibility and show informal leadership behaviour. This positive effect of intrinsic motivation on informal leadership emergence has been suggested in former research by Zaccaro, Ely & Nelson (2008) and will be tested in this study.

Data was collected in 25 teams of a non–profit student organization. The organizations’ structure resembles a modern multi–national company with 70,000 members in over 120 countries. As a non– profit organization and a place for students to develop their personal leadership potential, team leaders’ goals include personal and leadership development for all members in addition to leading the team to performance. With little prior formal leadership experience of most formal leaders, there is a multitude of different approaches on formal leadership, making it an interesting setting to see the impact of high and low empowering leadership behaviour.

THEORY

understanding of their own role can change towards more involved and self–responsible behaviour and team members have room to display leadership behaviour.

Informal leadership emergence

When looking at new directions in organizational research, informal leadership has been identified as an important factor in organizational behaviour (Bass, 1990; Wheelan & Johnston, 1996). Until now there is not a lot of research on informal leader emergence. As according to Zhang et al. (2012) it is not sufficient to only examine informal leader behaviours, but the effect of formal leadership on the emergence of informal leaders needs to be considered. Thus, only knowing how informal leadership can be beneficial is not helpful if there is no knowledge on how to facilitate informal leadership emergence. An informal leader emerges when an individual gains influence over other team members in the dimensions of motivation, direction, and task behaviour (Schneier & Goktepe, 1983; Lord, Foti & De Vader, 1984), without being in a formal position of leadership and without having official authority (Pielstick, 2000). Also, emergent leaders might be just as important for the completion of team tasks as are designated leaders (Stogdill, 1974). When considering the antecedents of informal leader emergence, the role played by the formal leader is crucial (Zhang et al., 2012).

influence over them (Hollander, 1958) and emerging as informal leaders. Based on those findings, hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1: Empowering leadership by the formal leader has a positive effect on informal leadership emergence in team members.

The mediating role of intrinsic motivation

I argue that the positive effect of empowering leadership on informal leadership emergence is mediated by intrinsic motivation. Previous research has related empowering leadership to a myriad of positive outcomes. Among those are productivity, job satisfaction and team commitment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), but most importantly intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer, 1995). That is, empowering leaders give team members autonomy and allow self–directed decision making. Studies have demonstrated autonomy is needed to feel intrinsic motivation (deCharms, 1968; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is defined as an individual engaging in an activity because the activity is perceived as inherently interesting and satisfying (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and it was found to be related to learning and growth while external motivation/regulation promotes displaying performance over learning and growth (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). Furthermore, Gerhart and Fang found that intrinsically motivated behaviour achieves more positive outcomes than extrinsically motivated behaviour. Also, empowerment (as the result of empowering leadership) is connected to the motivation of employees (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). When presenting their Interpretive Model of Intrinsic Task Motivation, Thomas and Velthouse (1990) have gone one step further by interpreting ‘to empower’ as a synonym for ‘to energize’ within the motivational use of the term. Furthermore, they explain their use of the word empowerment is consistent with motivational aspects of newer concepts of leadership (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Block, 1987). In conclusion, I expect empowering leadership to have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation of employees.

leadership. In an experimental study with 48 participating students engaging in group–based problem solving tasks, Sorrentino and Field (1986) tested this suggestion and found that there is a positive effect of motivation on informal leadership emergence. Specifically, they tested the effect of achievement and affiliation motivation on leadership emergence. Achievement motivation aims at extrinsic factors like success and professional achievement while affiliation motivation aims at friendship and belonging (Sorrentino & Field, 1986) which can be interpreted as more intrinsic forms of motivation compared to achievement motivation. In their study, the rather intrinsic affiliation motivation was found to be the stronger predictor of emergent leadership than extrinsic achievement motivation. Taken together, these findings suggest a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and informal leadership emergence. In conclusion, I hypothesize a positive effects of empowering leadership on intrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation on informal leadership emergence, as seen in Figure 1.

Hypothesis 2: The positive effect of empowering leadership by the formal team leader on the emergence of informal leadership in individuals in a team is mediated by the individual team members’ intrinsic motivation.

Figure 1: Conceptual model

METHODOLOGY

To test the hypotheses, data was collected from students working in the German branch of an international non–profit student organization. Background for the choice of this target group is its focus on leadership development in young people. With both departmental and team–based structure and challenging tasks, it offers a suitable setting to observe personal and leadership development. The operations focus on facilitating international exchange by offering both social projects and professional internships for students worldwide. The main activities include sending students abroad and receiving students when they come for an internship or project. Work within the organization is divided into different functions that are taken care of by teams. The teams’ responsibilities are Finance, Talent Management, Marketing, Incoming and Outgoing Exchange (facilitating the exchange process). In this, the Finance department takes care of the bookkeeping, budgeting and creation of the full annual statement for example while the members of the Exchange Functions help students to find and prepare for a social project they are taking part in abroad. Teams usually consist of three to eight members and each member has a clearly defined job description within the team. The team leader has to coordinate, track, support, and evaluate the work of the team members.

The German branch of the organization consists of the national board that works full–time for a one–year term and 40 local committees that take care of the operations. Each team has a team leader that is elected once a year by all members of the local committee for the upcoming year. This structure is used to ensure challenging leadership experiences for as many members as possible. With very different personalities and usually little–to–no prior formal leadership experience, there is a diverse set of approaches and formal leadership styles between the different team leaders. Thus, this research aims to find links between the empowering aspects of the leader’s leadership style and the development of team members as informal leaders.

the survey was conducted in English to enable all members of the organization to participate. Filling in the survey lasted about 15 to 20 minutes.

Data was gathered using an online survey (see Appendix A for measurement items) that was sent out to 25 teams, including 103 team members and 25 team leaders. With 88 member responses and 22 leader responses, the response rate was 86% for members and 88% for team leaders. Out of the 88 participating team members, eight participants had to be removed from the dataset as they started answering the survey but did not finish and their answer was collected automatically, leaving 80 participants with a participation rate of 78% for members. Individual missing values were replaced with the mean of all other participants’ answers for this value. On average, each team consisted of one team leader and 4.12 team members.

The sample of members consisted of 51 female (64%) and 29 male participants (36%) with a mean age of 22.7 (SD = 2.03) years. 58 members were bachelor students (73%) and 22 already graduated (27%). In the sample of team leaders, twelve were female and ten were male with a mean age of 22.6 (SD = 1.91) years. Interestingly, 18 of 22 team leaders (82%) had just a high–school diploma and the remaining four completed their Bachelor’s degree. Also, team leaders spent a longer time within the organization (i.e., 50% were already engaged for five semesters or more) than team members (i.e., 14% were already engaged for five semesters or more). The team leaders also spent more time working for the organization on average per week (i.e., 59% work more than 20h) while team members worked less (i.e., 20% worked more than 20h).

Measures

Empowering leadership. This study will use the Empowering Leadership Questionnaire (ELQ) by Arnold et al. (2000). It examines the empowering leader behaviours leading by example, coaching, participative decision making, informing, and showing concern/interacting with the team. The different behaviours were measured by five to eleven statements about their leader that the team members had to either agree or disagree on. This rating used a seven–item Likert–scale, ranging from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). This measure of empowering leadership showed a satisfactory reliability (alpha = .90). Intrinsic motivation. In order to measure intrinsic motivation, three of the eighteen items from Tremblay et al. (2009) are used. Out of these eighteen, fifteen are to measure other kinds of motivation which are not relevant in this context as informal leadership emergence is hypothesized to be intrinsically motivated in this study. The three items ask for reasons why the participant works for the organization (e.g. “For the satisfaction I experience from taking on interesting challenges”) (Tremblay et al., 2009). Participants reported their motivation by agreeing or disagreeing with the three items on a seven–item Likert–scale, ranging from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). The internal reliability of these three items is sufficiently high (alpha = .71).

Informal leadership emergence. To measure informal leadership emergence, each individual team member had to rate the other members of the team. They were asked whether the other person influences them. The three options to rate were “not at all”, “to some extent” or “very much”. After collecting the data, each participants’ answers contained ratings of all fellow team members’ influence on them. To allow statistical analysis, this data was extracted from the dataset and compiled into one single variable for each team member by calculating the mean of all ratings of influence that were available. After compilation, the data was reinserted into the dataset.

control variable because team members that spend more time might take over more responsibility that could be perceived as leadership behaviour by colleagues, indicating informal leadership.

RESULTS

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviation and Correlation Table

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations between the key variables of this research. Empowering leadership was predicted to have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation. As a basis for that, empowering leadership shows a marginal correlation with intrinsic motivation, especially participative decision making, informing, and coaching displayed marginal correlations with r–values between .15 and .17 ( p < .2) while leading by example (r = .09, p = .42) and showing concern/interacting with the team (r = .14, p = .24) did not correlate. When combining all five subscales, empowering leadership (r = .16, p < .2) correlates with intrinsic motivation marginally.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Empowering leadership: Participative decision making 5.37 0.76 1 2. Empowering leadership: Informing 5.68 1.09 .44*** 1 3. Empowering leadership: Coaching 5.54 1.01 .63*** .73*** 1 4. Empowering leadership: Total 5.60 0.85 .74*** .84*** .93*** 1 5. Intrinsic motivation 5.91 0.76 .17* .17* .15* .16* 1 6. Informal leadership emergence 1.90 0.57 –.03 –.02 –.08 –.08 –.11 1 7. Gender 1.36 0.48 –.11 –.10 –.07 –.14 –.22* .22** 1 8. Average hours worked per

No statistically significant correlation between intrinsic motivation (r = –.11, p = .32) and informal leadership emergence was found. Furthermore, the r value is slightly negative, suggesting rather a negative than a positive relationship, contrary to the expected effect.

Gender and average hours worked per weak both correlate with both intrinsic motivation and informal leadership emergence. Therefore, I included these variables in the regression analysis.

Regression analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the regression analysis for intrinsic motivation, displaying results for either empowering leadership as a whole (M1a) or participative decision making as one of the individual behaviours (M1b). It also shows the regression analysis of informal leadership emergence (M2) and informal leadership emergence controlling for intrinsic motivation (M3). All four models show a rather weak explanation of variance (R²) with M1a explaining 12%, M1b explaining 13%, M2 explaining 19% and M3 explaining 21%. The coefficients of the regression presented in the table are standardized in order to allow comparability.

Hypothesis 1 proposed a positive effect of empowering leadership on informal leadership emergence. As seen in M2, empowering leadership: total (b = –.07, p = .52) did not show a significant positive effect on informal leadership emergence. Without this effect, hypothesis 1 has to be dismissed.

non–significant effect of empowering leadership on intrinsic motivation, the first relationship necessary for the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation cannot be confirmed.

For the second part of hypothesis 2, intrinsic motivation was expected to have a positive effect on informal leadership emergence. When analysing M3, intrinsic motivation (b = –.15, p < .2) displayed a marginally significant but negative effect on informal leadership emergence. This negative effect contradicts the expected positive effect. As a prerequisite for mediation, empowering leadership is supposed to have a significant effect on the mediator variable. As seen before, empowering leadership: total has an insignificant effect on both intrinsic motivation as the mediator variable (M1a) and on informal leadership emergence (M3). With these two basic requirements unmet, there is no mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between empowering leadership and informal leadership emergence. Consequently, hypothesis 2 has to be dismissed.1

Table 2: Results of Regression Analysis

1 _{A multilevel model regression was performed to control for variance between the different teams. This analysis}

found effects very similar to the effects found in the individual level regression, none of the hypotheses could be confirmed. Consequently, this study relies on the results found by the regression analysis presented in Table 2.

Results of Regression Analysis

Intrinsic motivation (M1a) Intrinsic motivation (M1b) Informal leadership emergence (M2) Informal leadership emergence (controlled for intrinsic motivation) (M3) Independent Variables b p SE b p SE b p SE b p SE (Constant) 5.32*** .00 .65 5.05*** .00 .69 1.30*** .01 .47 1.95*** .00 .64 Empowering Leadership: Total .12 .28 .10 –.07 .52 .07 –.05 .64 .07 Empowering Leadership: Participative decision making .16* .15 .11 Gender –.21* .06 .17 –.21* .05 .17 .19* .07 .13 .16* .14 .13 Average hours

worked per week .23** .04 .05 .24** .03 .05 .37*** .00 .03 .41*** .00 .03 Intrinsic

Motivation –.15* .14 .08

R / R² .34 / .12 .36 / .13 .43 / .19 .46 / .21

DISCUSSION

This study set out to investigate the effect of empowering leadership on the emergence of informal leaders, expecting a positive effect mediated by intrinsic motivation. The results of this study could not support the proposed relationships between empowering leadership and informal leadership emergence. Furthermore, the positive relationships needed for a mediation of the aforementioned relationship by intrinsic could not be found. With this, both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 cannot be confirmed by the results found in this study.

Theoretical implications

The results of this study show no significant relationship between the presence of empowering leadership and informal leadership emergence. This in line with the findings of Seers (1989) who found that leadership emergence is not triggered by the actions of the formal leader but by a fellow team member sending the expectation of leadership behaviour. If then a colleague steps in and shows the effective leadership behaviour the formal leader fails to provide, he/she acts as an informal leader (Hackman, 1992). This establishes informal patterns between colleagues, resulting in an informal hierarchical structure that is rather negotiated between the team members than inspired by formal leadership positions (Seers, 1989). Based on these findings, I suggest that leader emergence is not necessarily triggered by the formal leader’s behaviour, but by the group process and interaction within the team. These findings create further research opportunities to research the inner–team processes that trigger informal leadership emergence.

need for an informal leader might not become evident, resulting in a mitigating effect of formal leadership on informal leadership emergence which could explain the missing support for this study’s hypotheses. On the other hand, the results challenge the assumption that a good team leader will develop team members to become emergent leaders as the opposite might be true, instead, only a bad leader might create the need for informal leaders to substitute (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) or counterbalance the formal leader (Wheelan & Johnston, 1996). Future research should follow up on this notion to determine whether or in which situations leader behaviour is enabling or disabling informal leadership emergence within work teams.

Practical implications

The results of this study found no significant effect of whether a formal leader shows empowering leadership behaviours on the emergence of informal leaders. The fact that there was no relationship found allows the interpretation that not only external influence of the team leader or the individual characteristics may affect the emergence of informal leaders but there might be other factors involved. If an organization is striving to have informal emergent leaders within teams, it might be interesting to not only focus on improving or adapting the leadership skills of the formal leader but to look at dynamics within the team or personal characteristics and behaviours of team members.

team members. For practical situations this could mean that team members that put more effort into work will be more likely to emerge as informal leaders. If developing informal leaders is an objective in an organization, informal leadership emergence might be facilitated by encouraging to and rewarding employees for high effort.

Limitations and future directions

This study used cross–sectional data that contains information about a portion of the whole population at a specific point of time and assumes parameters to be constant across organizations and over time (Bowen & Wiersema, 1999). With field studies using cross–sectional methods relying on single–year data, the results might fail to detect the true nature of relationships or fail to detect them at all (Rumelt, 1991). This way, no timely trend effects can be controlled for (Lubatkin & Chatterjee, 1991). As informal leadership emergence requires a development process over a period of time being engaged in an organization, a longitudinal method to research informal leadership emergence would be helpful as it addresses that investigated relationships might vary or change systematically over time (Bowen & Wiersema, 1999). When considering the inconclusive results of this study, future research should utilize not only single–year data about individuals but how they are developing over time. This would allow more detailed assessment of factors that determine the emergence of informal leadership and how they affect individuals over time.

The aforementioned high levels of both empowering leadership and intrinsic motivation could be caused by the nature of the organization that the data was collected in. In a non–profit student organization, people are only engaged for intrinsic reasons like learning or serving a higher purpose as there are no extrinsic motivators like money or status. Furthermore, with its mission to develop young people in the world, all leaders are supposed to empower the organization’s members to learn more and to seek new challenges like taking over leadership responsibilities. This could explain the high levels in empowering leader behaviour of the formal leader and the self–reported level of intrinsic motivation (see Table 1 for details). When knowing that both values would be that high, it could have been expected to have difficulties identifying a clear trend between the variables. With that, the weak and insignificant effects of empowering leadership on intrinsic motivation could be explained as displayed in Table 2. In a future setting that collects data with more variance within the level of empowering leader behaviour and more variance in the intrinsic motivation of team members, more robust evidence for existing relationships can be found. Based on the existing results, a relationship can only be assumed but needs to be tested in future research.

the measurement of informal leadership emergence used by Zhang et al. (2012) might be helpful as it is phrased more neutrally (“To what degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership?”).

This study found a relationship between the average hours worked per week and informal leadership emergence as seen in Table 2. Furthermore, a relationship between the average hours worked per week and intrinsic motivation was found. These results suggest that this conceptual framework misses an additional variable like the average hours worked per week between intrinsic motivation and informal leadership emergence. Alternatively, the average hours worked per week could take the role of a moderator or mediator within the construct. This notion should be considered by future research to identify the effect that the amount of time spent working for the organization has on the level of informal leadership emergence.

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 10: 123–167.

Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., Drasgow, F. 2000. The Empowering Leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 21: 249–269.

Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial

Applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Batt, R. 2002. Managing customer services: human resources practices, quit rates, and sales growth.

Academy of Management Journal, 45 (3): 587–597.

Berson, Y., Dan, O., Yammarino, F. J. 2006. Attachment style and individual differences in leadership perceptions and emergence. Journal of Social Psychology, 146: 165–182.

Block, P. 1987. The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Bowen, H. P., Wiersema, M. F. 1999. Matching Method to Paradigm in Strategy Research: Limitations of Cross–sectional Analysis and some Methodological Alternatives. Strategic Management

Journal, 20: 625–636.

Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared Leadership in Teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (5): 1217–1234. Conger J. A., Kanungo, R. N. 1988. The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice.

Academy of Management Review, 13: 471–482.

Day, D. V., Sin, H. P., Chen, T. T. 2004. Assessing the burdens of leadership: Effects of formal leadership roles on individual performance over time. Personnel Psychology, 57: 573–605. deCharms, R. 1968. Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., Sheinman, L. 1981. Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40: 1–10.

Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. 2002. Handbook of self–determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Diefenbach, T., Sillince, J.A.A. 2011. Formal and Informal Hierarchy in Different Types of Organization. Organization Studies, 32 (11): 1515–1537.

Foti, R. J., Hauenstein, N. M. A. 2007. Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 347–355.

Gerhart, B., Fang, M. 2015. Pay, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Performance, and

Creativity in the Workplace: Revisiting Long–Held Beliefs.

Hollander, E. P. 1958. Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65 (2): 117– 127.

Hollander, E. P. 1960. Competence and conformity in the acceptance of influence. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 61 (3): 365–369.

Hong, Y., Catano, V. M., Liao, H. 2011. Leader emergence: the role of emotional intelligence and motivation to lead. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32 (4): 320–343.

Karriker, J. H. 2005. Cyclical group development and interaction–based leadership emergence in autonomous teams: An integrated model. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11: 54–64.

Katz, D., Kahn, R. L. 1978. The social psychology of organizations 2nd _{edition. New York: Wiley.} Kerr, S., Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375–403.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development, 10: 131–167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self–management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58–74.

Laumann, E. O., Siegel, P. M., Hodge, R. W. 1971. The logic of social hierarchies. 2nd printing. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., De Vader, C.L. 1984. A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 34: 343–378.

Lubatkin, M. H., Chatterjee, S. 1991. The strategy–shareholder value relationship: Testing temporal stability across market cycles. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (4): 251–270.

Manz, C. C., Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106–130.

Martin, S. L., Liao, H., Campbell, E. M. 2013. Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56: 1372–1395.

Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., Robertson, B. 2006. Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17 (3): 232–245. Meindl, J. R., Mayo, M., Pastor, J. C. 2002. Shared Leadership in Work Teams: A Social Network

Approach. Working Paper.

Mousnier, R. 1973. Social hierarchies. New York: Schocken Books.

Muczyk, J. P. 2002. An Attempt At A Consentience Regarding Formal Leadership. Journal of

Neubert, M. J. 1999. Too Much of a Good Thing or the more the Merrier? Exploring the Dispersion and Gender Composition of Informal Leadership in Manufacturing Teams. Small Group Research, 30 (5): 635–646.

Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A. 2002. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Pielstick, C. D. 2000. Formal vs. Informal Leading: A Comparative Analysis. The Journal of

Leadership Studies, 7 (3): 99–114.

Rajotte, C. A. 1996. Empowerment as a leadership theory. Kansas Nurse, 71 (1): 1.

Rumelt, R. P. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12 (3): 167–185. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New

Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25: 54–67.

Schneier, C. E., Goktepe, J. R. 1983. Issues in emergent leadership: The contingency model of leadership, leader sex, leader behavior. In Blumberg HH, Hare AP, Kent V, Davies MF (Eds.),

Small groups and social interactions: 413–421. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Seers, A. 1989. Team–member exchange quality: A new construct for role–making research.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 118–135.

Sorrentino, R. M., Field, N. 1986. Emergent leadership over time: The functional value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 1091–1099.

Spreitzer, G. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1442–1465.

Stogdill, R. M. 1974. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York Free Press. Taggar, S., Hackett, R., Saha, S. 1999. Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams: Antecedents

and outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 52: 899–926.

Tallberg, J. 2010. The Power of the Chair: Formal Leadership in International Cooperation.

International Studies Quarterly, 54 (1): 241–265.

Teo, T. S. H., Lim, V. K. G., Lai, R. Y. C. 1999. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage.

International Journal of Management and Science, 27: 25–37.

Thomas, K. W., Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic taskmotivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666–681.

Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., Villeneuve, M. 2009. Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its Value for Organizational Psychology Research. Canadian

Journal of Behavioural Science, 41 (4): 213–226.

Wheelan, S.A., Johnston, F. 1996. The Role of Informal Member Leaders in a System Containing Formal Leaders. Small Group Research, 27 (1): 33–55.

Wolff, S. B., Pescosolido, A. T., Druskat, V. U. 2002. Emotional intelligence as the basis of leader emergence in self–managing teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (5): 505–522.

Yoo, Y., Alavi, M. 2004. Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do?

Yukl, G., Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of Influence Tactics Used with Subordinates, Peers, and the Boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (4): 525–535.

Zaccaro, S. J., Ely, K., Nelson, J. 2008. Leadership processes and work motivation.

APPENDIX

Intrinsic motivation:

“Why are you working for the organization?”

 Because I derive much pleasure from learning new things.

 For the satisfaction I experience from taking on interesting challenges.  For the satisfaction I experience when I am successful at doing difficult tasks.

Empowering leadership behavior of the team leader: Leading by example

 Sets high standards for performance by his/her own behaviour.  Works as hard as he/she can.

 Works as hard as anyone in the team.

 Sets a good example by the way he/she behaves.  Leads by example.

Participative decision making

 Encourages team members to express ideas/suggestions.  Listens to the team's ideas and suggestions.

 Uses the team's suggestions to make decisions that affect us.  Gives all team members a chance to voice their opinions.  Considers the team's ideas when he/she disagrees with.  Makes decisions that are based only on his/her ideas.

Coaching

 Helps the team see areas in which we need more training.  Suggests ways to improve my team's performance.  Encourages team members to solve problems together.

 Encourages team members to exchange information with one another.  Provides help to team members.

 Teaches team members how to solve problems on their own.  Pays attention to the team's efforts.

 Tells the team when we perform well.  Supports the team's efforts.

 Helps the team focus on our goals.

Informing

 Explains organizational decisions.  Explains organization goals.

 Explains how the team contributes to the organization.

 Explains the purpose of the organization's policies to the team.  Explains rules and expectations to the team.

 Explains his/her decisions and actions to the team.

Showing concern/interacting with the team

 Cares about team members' personal problems.  Shows concern for team members' well–being.  Treats team members as equals.

 Takes the time to discuss team members' concerns patiently.  Shows concern for team members' success.

 Stays in touch with the team.  Gets along with the team members.

 Gives team members honest and fair answers.  Knows what work is being done in my team.  Finds time to chat with team members.

Informal leadership emergence

Example: Team member A rates team members B, C, and D

His / her influence on me

Not at all Somewhat To a large extent

Team member B O O O

Team member C O O O