THE DOWNSIDE OF LOOKING LIKE A LEADER:



Running Head: LEADER CONFIDENCE AND FOLLOWER PARTICIPATIONThe Downside of Looking Like a Leader:How a Leader’s Confident Nonverbal Demeanor Can Stifle Follower ParticipationConnson C. LockeUniversity of California, BerkeleyCameron AndersonUniversity of California, BerkeleyAuthor NoteConnson C. Locke and Cameron Anderson, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. Connson C. Locke is now at the Department of Management, London School of Economics, United Kingdom.This research was supported in part by the Schwabacher Dissertation Fellowship, UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, and Haas X-Lab. We gratefully acknowledge the invaluable feedback received from James R. Detert, Dacher Keltner, Laura J. Kray, Daan Stam, and Barry Staw. This article is based on the first author’s doctoral dissertation, submitted to the University of California, Berkeley. An earlier version was presented at the 70th annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Montreal, Canada, August 2010.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Connson C. Locke, Department of Management, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, United Kingdom. E-mail: c.c.locke@lse.ac.uk.AbstractLeaders can appear more competent by exhibiting a confident nonverbal demeanor. However, the current investigation reveals that a leader’s confident demeanor can also have a negative consequence: the stifling of follower participation. In three laboratory studies, we found that the more confidence the leader exhibited nonverbally, the less followers participated in joint discussions. Furthermore, followers deferred to leaders who exhibited a confident demeanor even when leaders made incorrect decisions. The mechanism for this stifling effect depended on the context. When follower participation was not invited by the leader, the leader’s confident demeanor stifled participation by making the leader appear more threatening. In contrast, when follower participation was invited, the leader’s confident demeanor stifled participation by making the leader appear more competent. The Downside of Looking Like a Leader:How a Leader’s Confident Nonverbal Demeanor Can Stifle Follower ParticipationLeaders reap many benefits from displaying confident nonverbal behaviors such as expanded posture, frequent and direct eye contact, and confident tone of voice. For example, confident leaders are afforded more influence and judged to be more competent, charismatic, and effective (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Driskell, Olmstead, & Salas, 1993; Ridgeway, 1987). Indeed, leaders are encouraged to adopt a confident nonverbal demeanor in order to be more effective and enhance their image (e.g., Bates, 2005; Fritz, Brown, Lunde, & Banset, 2005; Howell & Costley, 2006). While displaying confident nonverbal behavior might make a leader appear more competent, we argue that there may also be an unexpected downside. Specifically, we propose that leaders who display a confident nonverbal demeanor can stifle their followers’ participation, leading to poorer communication and suboptimal decisions. We tested this hypothesis in three laboratory studies that examined dyadic interactions between leaders and followers. Specifically, we used video recordings of the interactions to code leaders’ nonverbal behavior, followers’ reactions and participation, and examine the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon.Nonverbal Behavior and LeadershipTwo sets of findings have linked leadership to nonverbal displays of confidence. First, research has shown that confident nonverbal behaviors help individuals emerge as a leader in groups (Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987). Individuals who exhibit a confident demeanor tend to be considered more skilled, have better leadership ability, and are given more influence and leadership responsibility in joint decisions than those who do not display confidence (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Carli, LaFleur, & Loeber, 1995; Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987).Second, research has shown that for individuals who occupy positions of leadership, confident nonverbal behaviors help them appear more competent to followers. Confident nonverbal behavior enhances perceivers’ judgments of leaders’ charisma and effectiveness – sometimes even more than the content of leaders’ speech or their actual performance (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Holladay & Coombs, 1993, 1994). Therefore, confidence is widely viewed as a core ingredient of effective leadership (Hannah, Avolio, Luthans, & Harms, 2008; Luthans, Luthans, Hodgetts, & Luthans, 2001; Peterson, Balthazard, Waldman, & Thatcher, 2008). In the current research, we build from the latter set of findings, focusing on the nonverbal display of confidence shown by individuals in leadership positions. Specifically, we extend prior work by proposing that there may be an unexpected downside to the leader’s display of a confident nonverbal demeanor – namely, that it might stifle follower participation and hamper joint decision making. The term “leader” has been defined in a multitude of ways (Bass, 2008). We use the term “leader” to refer to individuals who occupy supervisory positions and “follower” to refer to the persons they supervise (e.g., Hollander, 1992; Kellerman, 2008; Yukl, 2006). Moreover, our focus is on nonverbal displays of confidence, such as those that imply task ability (e.g., confident tone of voice, straight posture, direct eye contact, confident gestures; Driskell, et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987; Ridgeway, Berger, & Smith, 1985). These have been differentiated from dominance cues (e.g., commanding tone of voice, forward looming posture, intrusive gestures), which imply “control through threat” (Driskell et al., 1993, p. 51). While the display of confidence has been shown to produce perceptions of competence, dominance cues have not (Carli et al., 1995; Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987).Leader Confident Nonverbal Demeanor and Follower ParticipationWe propose that leaders who display a more confident nonverbal demeanor will stifle follower participation for at least two reasons. First, a leader’s confident demeanor may increase feelings of threat among followers. Prior work has shown that fear and feelings of threat are primary reasons why followers inhibit themselves and fail to express their ideas or opinions (Edmondson, 1999; Kish-Gephart, Detert, Trevino, & Edmondson, 2009). Followers most frequently cite the fear of negative consequences as the reason for not raising an important issue to their leaders (e.g., Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Ryan & Oestreich, 1991).Leaders who convey more confidence might signal to followers they are more steadfast in their own opinions and thus less open to follower input (Staw & Ross, 1980). Being in a position of followership increases sensitivity to threat and punishment, in particular the threat of losing favor with leaders (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Therefore, followers might be less likely to voice their opinions and ideas when the leader expresses more confidence because they are threatened by the possibility of damaging their relationship with the leader.Second, a leader’s confident demeanor might stifle voice precisely because it makes the leader appear more competent. Research on status characteristics theory has found that in task groups, members grant higher status and influence to those individuals whom they believe to have superior capabilities (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972). Individuals who believe they possess relatively lower competence inhibit their own contributions and afford others greater influence to increase the group’s chances of success (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Berger et al., 1972; Driskell & Mullen, 1990).As mentioned earlier, when leaders display a confident nonverbal demeanor they appear more competent (e.g., Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Carli et al., 1995). By appearing more competent, therefore, leaders might unintentionally lead followers to contribute less. Followers might participate less and afford more control to the leader so that the group has the best chance of succeeding. Indeed, such deference would be seen as functional because it would seem to place more weight on the judgments of those with the greatest perceived expertise (Anderson & Brown, 2010).Prior work on interpersonal complementarity (Horowitz et al., 2006; Kiesler, 1983) provides indirect evidence that leader confidence stifles follower participation. This work primarily examines behavioral units comprised of verbal and nonverbal elements (e.g., Strong et al., 1988; Dryer & Horowitz, 1997), but some research has focused specifically on nonverbal behavior (Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). In that research, individuals who displayed stronger nonverbal behavior (e.g., expanding arms and legs away from the body) caused their discussion partners to adopt weaker nonverbal behavior (i.e., pulling arms and legs closer to the body; Tiedens & Fragale, 2003). We extend this research in part by focusing on how leaders’ nonverbal behavior can impact followers’ participation in joint decisions, and in turn, the quality of those decisions.We conducted three laboratory studies. In Study 1, pairs of participants engaged in a joint decision-making task where one person was randomly assigned to be the discussion leader. The leader’s nonverbal behavior was measured through video coding and was expected to affect how much the follower participated. Studies 2 and 3 established causality by using a confederate as the leader and manipulating his nonverbal style. Study 3 tested the effects of the leader’s demeanor on follower deference, or concession in the joint decision. Both Studies 2 and 3 also examined the mechanisms underlying the relationship between leader demeanor and follower participation. Study 1This study was designed to test our central hypothesis – that a confident demeanor displayed by leaders will stifle follower participation. Participants were randomly paired into dyads to work on a decision-making task; within the dyad they were randomly assigned to the role of leader (supervisor) or follower (subordinate). We videotaped dyads’ deliberations to allow for behavior coding. MethodParticipants. Participants were 86 undergraduates (57 female, 29 male) who were paid $15. Participants formed 43 dyads and were 20 years old on average (SD = 1.61). Procedures. Two participants were scheduled for each laboratory session. Upon arrival they were told the study involved decision making using a business simulation task. The participants were assigned to the roles of supervisor and subordinate. According to previous research and theoretical conceptions, individuals in positions of leadership tend to have legitimacy, control over resources, and evaluative power (Bass, 2008; French & Raven, 1959; Yukl, 2006). Therefore, similar to previous research (Johnson, 1993, 1994), we gave the supervisor legitimacy by telling both participants their role assignments were based on their work history, which had been measured several days earlier in an online survey they both completed; in fact they were randomly assigned. We also gave the supervisor control over resources and evaluative power (Herold, 1977) by telling both participants they would be entered into a lottery for a $50 cash prize and the supervisor would determine how much of the prize the subordinate would receive based on the supervisor’s evaluation at the end of the session. In contrast, the subordinate would not evaluate the supervisor or determine how much of the prize the supervisor would receive.To prepare for the decision-making task (adapted from Johnson, 1993, 1994), the supervisor read two memos from the “Head Office” that described an organization facing problems and outlined possible solutions to those problems. At the same time, to further establish the supervisor and subordinate roles, the subordinate performed a clerical task that was briefly checked by the supervisor to ensure it was completed correctly. The supervisor then engaged the subordinate in a videotaped 15-minute discussion with the goal of reaching consensus on the solutions. After the discussion, as a leader/follower role manipulation check, participants rated the degree to which they assumed the role of the leader in the discussion. Participants were then fully debriefed and thanked.Leader/follower role manipulation checks. After the dyad’s discussion, participants privately rated two statements measuring the degree to which they assumed the role of leader: “I led our discussion,” and “I was in control during the discussion.” Each item was rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These items correlated together (α = .84) and were thus combined. Participants also indicated which role they had played, supervisor or subordinate.Supervisor confident demeanor. The confidence of supervisors’ demeanor was coded from videotape of the discussions. Based on previous research on nonverbal behavior, we wanted to sample from three different nonverbal channels (eyes, body, vocal qualities) and chose the following task cues: frequency of eye contact, upright posture, and vocal loudness (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987). Eye contact reflected the amount of time participants looked directly at their partner. Consistent with previous research, it was measured in seconds for the entire discussion and then divided by the total time the dyad spent working together (Edinger & Patterson, 1983; Murphy, 2007). As in previous research (Murphy, 2007), posture was rated on a scale from 1 (slumped) to 7 (straight) and loudness from 1 (quiet) to 7 (loud). In addition, participants were rated on how confident their nonverbal style was overall from 1 (uncertain, weak) to 7 (confident, strong). This molar measure was included to capture any other potentially relevant nonverbal behaviors in addition to eye contact, posture, and loudness. The “thin slices” literature has shown that short portions of nonverbal behavior have predictive utility comparable to lengthier slices (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Murphy, 2005). Furthermore, leaders’ behavior in the beginning of joint deliberations has more impact on the interpersonal dynamic than their later behavior (Bass, 2008; Shaw, 1961). Therefore, ratings for posture, loudness, and overall nonverbal style were based on a one-minute slice taken from the beginning of each interaction. Because the rate of eye contact was low and sometimes did not occur in the first minute (participants gazed at the memos while talking), eye contact was measured for the entire discussion. To establish inter-coder reliability a second coder watched 20% (10) of the dyads. The two coders agreed in their judgments of posture (r = .77), loudness (r = .70), nonverbal power (r = .80), and eye contact (r = .92). These four items also correlated with each other (α = .70). That is, some supervisors tended to give more eye contact, sit up straighter, speak louder, and generally convey more confident nonverbal behaviors than others. Therefore, we standardized and combined these four measures to create one aggregate index of supervisor confident demeanor. Subordinate participation. Based on previous research (e.g., Johnson, 1993; Leffler, Gillespie, & Conaty, 1982), we used speaking time as the measure of subordinate participation. Dyads varied in the total amount of time they worked together thus creating variation in total dyad speaking time (M = 10.55, SD = 3.80), making it necessary to convert subordinate speaking time to a percentage of the total speaking time (otherwise some subordinates would score higher on this measure simply because their dyad worked longer on the task). Analyses were run with both percentages of speaking time and arcsine transformation of percentages.1 The arcsine transformation did not substantively change the results; therefore percentages of speaking time are reported. ResultsTests of the role manipulation suggest that it was successful. First, all participants accurately recalled the role they had played. Further, using a repeated measures ANOVA with the dyad as the unit of analysis and role (supervisor, subordinate) as the within-dyad factor, we found that supervisors (M = 5.17, SD = 1.07) reported behaving as a leader more than did subordinates (M = 3.42, SD = 1.273), F(1, 42) = 34.76, p < .001, η2 = .45. As expected, subordinates (M = 36.40, SD = 15.03) spoke a significantly smaller share of the time than supervisors (M = 63.60, SD = 15.03), F(1, 42) = 35.21, p < .001, η2 = .46. And supervisors (M = .17, SD = .73) exhibited a more confident demeanor than did subordinates2 (M = -.19, SD = .54), F(1, 39) = 11.36, p = .002, η2 = .23.To test the hypothesis that the supervisor’s confident demeanor stifled subordinate participation, we regressed the subordinate’s participation on the confidence of the supervisor’s demeanor ( = -.41, B = -8.08, SE = 2.84, p = .007, R2 = .17). This analysis indicates that the more confident the supervisor’s demeanor, the less the subordinate spoke and participated. To test the robustness of this finding, we examined the results by supervisor sex, as prior work has shown differences in the way subordinates respond to female and male leaders (see Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992 for a meta-analysis). First, subordinate participation did not differ when the supervisor was female (M = 38.47, SD = 14.43) versus male (M = 32.11, SD = 15.89), t(41) = 1.31, p = .20. Further, we conducted a moderated multiple regression (Aiken & West, 1991). The coefficients were = -.11 (B = -2.16, SE = 8.69, p = .81) for supervisor confident demeanor, = -.11 (B = -3.39, SE = 4.95, p = .50) for supervisor sex, and = -.30 (B = -4.25, SE = 6.32, p = .51) for the interaction term. Because the interaction term was not significant, supervisor sex did not moderate the effect of supervisor demeanor on subordinate participation. This suggests the more confidence supervisors exhibited nonverbally, the less subordinates participated, no matter the supervisors’ sex. DiscussionConsistent with previous research, leaders exhibited more confident nonverbal behaviors than followers, and followers spoke less than leaders. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that the more the leader used a confident demeanor, the less the follower participated in the decision-making discussion – thus supporting our central hypothesis. Finally, the findings held regardless of the sex of the leader. Thus, when both female and male leaders exhibited more confidence nonverbally, followers participated less.Study 2After testing the basic phenomenon of interest in Study 1, in Study 2 we sought to establish the causal priority of leaders’ confident demeanor and to examine the mediating mechanisms underlying the effect. To establish causality, we used a research confederate as the leader and systematically varied his demeanor across conditions. Based on prior research on confident nonverbal demeanor, we used a pre-recorded confederate as the leader (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Carli et. al., 1995; Driskell et. al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987), which afforded control over the leader’s nonverbal behavior and consistency in that behavior across dyads.In line with the arguments outlined in the Introduction, we examined two possible mediators: perceived supervisor threat and perceived supervisor competence. That is, do leaders who display more confidence nonverbally stifle follower voice because they instill perceived threat in their followers, because they appear more competent to followers, or both?MethodParticipants. Participants were 92 undergraduates who participated in partial fulfillment of an organizational behavior course requirement. Five participants were excluded from the analysis when they entered the decision-making discussion having chosen the same candidate as the confederate, making any discussion unnecessary. Seven other participants suspected the supervisor was pre-recorded and were also excluded. Excluded participants came from both conditions (5 from confident demeanor; 7 from less confident demeanor). This left 80 participants (43 male, 37 female), who were 21 years old (SD = 3.11) on average. Design. Similar to previous research (Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Carli et. al., 1995; Driskell et. al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987), we showed participants video recordings of a confederate (a male supervisor) and asked participants to answer questions based on that recording. To increase the realism and magnitude of the manipulation and ensure participants paid close attention to the confederate’s behavior, we also led participants to believe they were actually involved in a decision-making task with the recorded confederate. Further, we led them to believe they would work face-to-face with that person later. We used only one male supervisor to increase consistency across conditions and because Study 1 found no gender differences in the effect of supervisor demeanor.Videos of around two minutes in length were created of the supervisor introducing himself and presenting an argument for his preferred candidate while using either a confident or less confident demeanor. Based on previous research (Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987), in the confident demeanor condition, the confederate spoke confidently at a comfortable volume and normal speed, used confident gestures, showed frequent eye contact, and sat up straight. In the less confident demeanor condition, he spoke hesitantly and quietly with many dysfluencies, used uncertain gestures, avoided eye contact, and slumped in his chair.Procedure. Participants arrived at the lab one at a time and were randomly assigned to supervisor demeanor condition (confident vs. less confident). They were told that we were studying the effects of asynchronous video communication on work performed by supervisor-subordinate pairs. As in Study 1, the supervisor was given legitimacy and resource control. Pre-interviews with undergraduate students suggested that graduate students possess legitimate authority over undergraduates, thus participants were told that the supervisor was an MBA student with management experience (legitimacy), and based on the supervisor’s evaluation of their performance, he would determine whether participants could enter a lottery for a $50 cash prize (resource control). Furthermore, participants were told that, even though the supervisor was seated in another room for the video task, he would later join them in the same room for a face-to-face task. As in previous research (Carli et al., 1995; Ridgeway, 1987), the prospect of working with the recorded person face-to-face was designed to increase the effectiveness of the manipulation; a purely video-based interaction might have made participants less focused on the supervisor’s nonverbal cues than they would be in person.The experimenter then introduced the joint decision-making task. To create the illusion that the supervisor had no previous knowledge of the discussion topic, the participant was asked to choose the topic from a box of 20 numbered folders. In fact, all folders contained the same topic, which involved choosing the best of three candidates for a job (Peterson, 2001). The folder contained a diverse set of information about each candidate, including education, work experience, community service, and comments from co-workers about the candidates’ working style and personality. The experimenter removed from the folder separate packets of information for the supervisor and subordinate: a sheet of information that both the subordinate and supervisor possessed, and a sheet of “unique” information, clearly marked as such, that only the subordinate ostensibly possessed. In the information that both the supervisor and subordinate possessed, all three candidates were listed has having relatively similar credentials. Therefore, it would have been reasonable to select any of the three candidates based on that information. However, the unique information that only the participant possessed described why one candidate was the least qualified. This allocation of information made it plausible that the supervisor, whose unique information the subordinate could not see, might believe the least qualified candidate was the best one. The information packet also included a preference form on which each person was required to indicate his or her preferred candidate before entering the discussion. While the participant read the materials, the experimenter pretended to bring the supervisor his packet of information. After the participant completed the preference form, the experimenter went to the supervisor’s room to pick up his video message. In the video, the supervisor argued for the least qualified candidate while using either a confident or less confident demeanor. After being given a chance to respond, participants filled out a questionnaire that included our dependent measures of interest. During this time the supervisor was ostensibly responding in kind. The experiment then ended and the participant was fully debriefed and questioned thoroughly about any suspicions they may have had. Supervisor confident demeanor manipulation check. Participants’ perceptions of the supervisor were used as a manipulation check. Participants rated the supervisor’s self-confidence on a scale of 1 (not at all self-confident) to 9 (extremely self-confident). Perceived supervisor competence. Subordinates assessed the supervisor’s competence with three adjectives from Carli et al. (1995): competent, intelligent, and knowledgeable, on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). They also rated the statement “I felt the supervisor knew a lot more about the issue than I did” on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). The four items were combined (α = .70) to create one measure of perceived supervisor competence. Perceived supervisor threat. Perceived threat was measured using three adjectives from Carli et al. (1995): threatening, condescending, and intimidating rated on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). These three items were combined (α = .77) to create one measure of perceived threat. Subordinate participation. After being instructed to “Imagine that the MBA student you interacted with is your actual supervisor in a full-time job,” participants rated three statements representing different opportunities for participation. Much of the previous work on follower participation has focused specifically on followers pointing out their leaders’ mistakes, speaking up about unfair treatment, or disagreeing with organizational processes or decisions (e.g., Chaleff, 1995; Hirschman, 1970; Milanovich, Driskell, Stout, & Salas, 1998; Milliken et al., 2003). Therefore, we presented three statements: “If my supervisor treated me unfairly, I would immediately approach him about it,” “If I thought my supervisor was making a mistake, I would immediately point it out,” “If my supervisor proposed a plan or idea that I felt would not work, I would say so”. The three statements were rated on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) and were combined (α = .70) to create one measure of participation.ResultsSupervisor confident demeanor manipulation check. Participants’ judgments of the supervisor’s self-confidence were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. The supervisor was judged to be significantly more self-confident in the confident (M = 7.93, SD = 0.99) than in the less confident (M = 6.59, SD = 1.44) demeanor condition, F(1,78) = 24.46, p < .001, η2 = .24. Thus the confident demeanor manipulation was effective.Perceptions of supervisor. Before testing our hypothesis concerning subordinate participation, we first checked whether the supervisor’s confidence affected his perceived competence. Perceived competence was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. As expected, the supervisor was perceived as more competent by the subordinate when he used a confident (M = 6.70, SD = 1.14) rather than a less confident (M = 6.01, SD = 1.12) demeanor, F(1, 78) = 7.15, p = .009, η2 = .08. Therefore, consistent with prior research, there were image-related benefits to displaying confidence nonverbally.Subordinate participation. Participation was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. Subordinates were less likely to speak up when the supervisor used a confident (M = 5.66, SD = 1.35) rather than less confident (M = 6.49, SD = 1.37) demeanor, F(1, 78) = 7.27, p = .009, η2 = .09. Therefore, our central hypothesis was again supported, in that the supervisor’s confident demeanor led to less subordinate participation.Mediators of the effect of supervisor demeanor on subordinate participation. Using the procedure described in Baron and Kenny (1986), we tested perceived threat as a mediator of the effect of supervisor demeanor on subordinate participation. First, we regressed perceived threat on supervisor confident demeanor condition ( = .33, B = 0.98, SE = 0.32, p = .003, R2 = .11). Then we regressed participation on supervisor confident demeanor condition ( = -.29, B = -0.83, SE = 0.31, p = .009, R2 = .09). Finally we regressed participation on both supervisor confident demeanor condition and perceived threat. In the third equation, the relationship between participation and threat was significant ( = -.34, B = -0.32, SE = 0.10, p = .003, R2 = .19) and the relationship between participation and supervisor confident demeanor condition was not ( = -.18, B = -0.52, SE = 0.31, p = .10), thus meeting the requirements for mediation. This was confirmed with a Sobel test, z = -2.21, p = .027. We also tested the perceived competence variable. Even though perceived competence increased when the supervisor displayed a confident demeanor ( = .29, B = 0.69, SE = 0.26, p = .009, R2 = .08), perceived competence was not a mediator because the relationship between subordinate participation and perceived competence in the third equation was not significant ( = .14, B = 0.17, SE = 0.14, p = .23; Sobel z = 1.10, p = .27). The effect of the supervisor’s confident demeanor on subordinate participation was mediated by perceived threat, not competence.DiscussionThis study replicated the findings from Study 1 and also extended them in important ways. Consistent with prior work, we found that when the leader displayed more confidence nonverbally, he was perceived to be more competent. However, as in Study 1, when the leader exhibited a more confident demeanor, followers also participated less. Therefore, leader confidence had image-related benefits but participation-related costs. Further, by using a confederate as the leader, this study was able to better establish the causal priority of the leader’s confident demeanor on follower participation. Finally, we found that in this context, the leader’s confident demeanor presented a barrier to participation because it made him appear more threatening.Study 3In many contexts, followers are asked to participate in decision making because they possess information that the leader lacks (Bass, 2008; Fenton-O’Creevy, 1998; Locke & Schweiger, 1979). To make the best joint decision in such contexts, it is therefore critical for followers to communicate their unique information and preference. Otherwise, the joint decision will be determined by the leader’s incomplete information. In Study 3 we aimed to mimic this common scenario and test whether followers working under a more confident leader would communicate their unique and critical information less. We also wanted to examine whether in these contexts, in addition to stifling follower participation, the leader’s confident demeanor would increase followers’ tendency to defer to the leader’s preferences and opinions – even when the leader’s opinion was incorrect. Moreover, we wanted to further examine the mediating mechanisms underlying the effect of leader demeanor. In Study 2, we found a mediating effect for perceived threat but not perceived competence. However, in Study 2, we asked followers about contexts in which leaders did not invite their participation and in which follower participation was discretionary. It is thus possible that perceived threat played a stronger mediating role in Study 2 because, in discretionary participation, communication is initiated by the follower and might not be welcomed by the leader. In such contexts, followers might inhibit themselves primarily because they are fearful of overstepping their bounds.In contrast, in contexts where participation is invited by the leader and both leader and follower are jointly involved in a task, perceived competence might play a larger mediating role. As described in the Introduction, when involved in a joint task, group members seek signals of competence and defer to the more competent members (Berger et al., 1972). Thus in Study 3 we examined a context where the leader and follower were engaged in a joint decision-making task.Finally, in Study 3, while we wanted to again use an experimental design to allow for causal inference, we wanted to further increase the realism of our experimental manipulation. We thus asked participants to engage in a decision-making discussion with a live confederate. We employed a live confederate who, after receiving extensive training, was able to present pre-scripted arguments in a natural way while manipulating his demeanor across conditions. His demeanor in the confident and less confident conditions was manipulated in the same manner as in Study 2.MethodParticipants. Participants were 75 undergraduates who participated in partial fulfillment of an organizational behavior course requirement. Six participants were excluded from the analysis when they entered the decision-making discussion having chosen the same candidate as the confederate, making the discussion unnecessary. Excluded participants were from both conditions (2 from confident demeanor; 4 from less confident demeanor3). This left 69 participants (35 male, 34 female), who were 21 years old (SD = 1.89) on average.Design. A male research confederate, different from the one used in Study 2 and blind to the hypotheses, played the role of supervisor in all dyads. The decision-making task was the same as in Study 2. The participant and supervisor had to choose the best of three candidates for a job (Peterson, 2001). Once again, in the information provided to participants, two candidates were relatively highly qualified whereas one candidate was clearly less qualified than the other two. The supervisor was trained to always choose the least qualified candidate. Therefore a poor joint decision would result if subordinates deferred to the supervisor’s decision. Procedure. Participants arrived at the lab one at a time and were randomly assigned to supervisor demeanor condition (confident vs. less confident). Participants were told that the study examined employee assessment techniques and they would play the role of employees being assessed. Thus they would be asked to perform a series of tasks with a supervisor, after which the supervisor would evaluate their performance. As in Study 2, we bolstered the supervisor’s legitimacy by introducing him as a graduate student member of the research team. The supervisor was also given control over resources: participants were told that the supervisor’s evaluation of their performance at the end of the session would determine whether they were entered into a drawing for a $50 cash prize.To further establish the supervisor and subordinate roles, the supervisor led the participant through two tasks adapted from Snodgrass (1992): a job interview and puzzle assembly task. During this time the supervisor carefully maintained the appropriate demeanor (confident vs. less confident) and, after each task, he pretended to make notes evaluating the participant. The experimenter then introduced the joint decision-making task. As in Study 2, to create the illusion that the supervisor had no previous knowledge of the discussion topic, the participant was asked to choose the topic from a box of 20 numbered folders. In fact, all folders contained the same topic, which involved choosing the best of three candidates for a job. After reading the information about the candidates, the supervisor and subordinate each privately filled out a form indicating their preferred candidate. The experimenter then explained that the goal of the discussion was to agree on the best candidate for the job and left the room to allow the dyad to deliberate.The supervisor, who always chose the least qualified candidate and used the same pre-scripted arguments, opened the discussion by stating his preferred candidate and asking the participant for input. The supervisor was trained to remain firm in his choice, but also to avoid pressuring the subordinate to defer, making it clear that it was acceptable if the dyad were to say they were undecided. The dyads were given a maximum of 10 minutes for discussion (M = 8.24, SD = 2.03) and were videotaped while working together. After reaching a joint decision (or saying they were undecided), the supervisor summoned the experimenter, submitted their joint decision, and left. The participant then filled out an assessment of the supervisor. Finally, the participant was debriefed and questioned thoroughly about any suspicions they may have had. Supervisor confident demeanor manipulation check. To check the manipulation of the supervisor’s confident demeanor, a coder who was blind to condition watched a one-minute slice taken from the beginning of all videotaped discussions and rated the confederate’s demeanor (1: not at all strong and confident, 7: extremely strong and confident). A second coder watched 20% (14) of the dyads and achieved high inter-coder reliability (r = .93). Perceived supervisor competence. Perceived supervisor competence was measured in the same manner as in Study 2: participants rated the supervisor along three dimensions, competent, intelligent, and knowledgeable (1: not at all, 9: extremely), and the statement “I felt the supervisor knew a lot more about the issue than I did” (1: strongly disagree, 9: strongly agree). The four items were combined (α = .74). This variable is missing for two participants who did not complete all items. Perceived supervisor threat. Perceived threat was assessed with the same items used in Study 2: threatening, condescending, intimidating (1: not at all, 9: extremely), which were combined (α = .70) to create one measure of threat. This variable is missing for two participants who did not complete all items.Subordinate participation. Subordinate participation was measured with a multi-method approach that gauged both the content and amount of communication. First, subordinate speaking time was coded from the videotape and, as in Study 1, was converted to a percentage of the total dyad speaking time (M = 54.32, SD = 9.22). Second, a coder (different from the judge who coded the manipulation check) watched videotape of the discussions and counted each time the subordinate mentioned an item from his or her sheet of unique information (i.e., information that the supervisor did not have; M = 9.03, SD = 4.32). A second coder who watched 20% of the sessions agreed with these ratings (r = .91). Third, subordinates were asked to report their persistence during the discussion by responding to the statement “During the discussion, I pressed to get my points made” on a scale of 1 (never) to 9 (always) (M = 6.01, SD = 1.74). We standardized and combined these three measures (α = .60) to create one measure of participation.Subordinate deference. The confederate always chose the worst candidate and never wavered from his initial decision. Thus participants had two choices. They could defer to the supervisor’s poor choice, allowing the dyad to select the least qualified candidate, or they could refuse to defer, thus forcing the dyad to opt for “undecided.” Across conditions, 44% of dyads chose undecided and 56% chose the least qualified candidate. Along an exploratory vein, in the post-discussion debriefing we asked participants, “Which candidate do you personally prefer for the job (regardless of your joint decision)?” This was designed to determine whether those who deferred did so sincerely (i.e., believed the supervisor’s choice was best) or insincerely (i.e., still believed their own choice was best). ResultsSupervisor confident demeanor manipulation check. Coders’ judgments of the supervisor’s confident demeanor were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. The confident demeanor manipulation was effective, as evidenced by a significant difference between the confident (M = 6.08, SD = 0.73) and less confident (M = 2.00, SD = 0.83) demeanor conditions, F(1, 67) = 472.00, p < .001, η2 = .88.Perceptions of supervisor. Perceived competence was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. Once again, the supervisor was perceived as more competent by the subordinate when he used a confident (M = 6.83, SD = 0.86) rather than a less confident (M = 5.58, SD = 0.98) demeanor, F(1, 65) = 31.09, p < .001, η2 = .32. As in Study 2, displaying confidence nonverbally had image-related benefits for the leader.Subordinate participation. Subordinate participation was analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with supervisor demeanor condition as the between-subjects factor. Subordinates participated less when the supervisor exhibited a confident (M = -.24, SD = .64) rather than less confident (M = .21, SD = .74) nonverbal demeanor, F(1, 67) = 7.46, p = .008, η2 = .10. Therefore our central hypothesis was again supported, in that the supervisor’s more confident nonverbal demeanor led to less subordinate participation.Subordinate deference. The supervisor’s confident demeanor was expected to increase the frequency of subordinate deference. A chi-square analysis revealed that 69% of subordinates in the confident supervisor demeanor condition deferred to the supervisor’s poor choice, allowing the dyad to choose the wrong candidate, as compared to only 42% in the less confident supervisor demeanor condition. This difference was significant, χ2(1, N = 69) = 5.12, p = .024, odds ratio = 3.07. Therefore, not only did the supervisor’s confident demeanor stifle subordinate participation, it also led subordinates to defer to the supervisor’s poor decision.We also looked at the responses to the debriefing question, “Which candidate do you personally prefer for the job (regardless of your joint decision)?” Out of the 39 participants who agreed with the supervisor’s poor choice, only 8 participants said they still preferred their original choice (i.e., deferred insincerely). Therefore, most participants who agreed with the supervisor’s choice did so because they sincerely believed the supervisor was correct. Mediators of the effect of supervisor demeanor on subordinate participation. Using the steps outlined in Baron and Kenny (1986), we tested whether perceived competence mediated the effect of supervisor demeanor on subordinate participation. First, we regressed perceived competence on supervisor confident demeanor condition ( = .57, B = 1.25, SE = 0.23, p < .001, R2 = .32). Second, we regressed subordinate participation on supervisor confident demeanor condition ( = -.32, B = -0.45, SE = 0.17, p = .008, R2 = .10). Third, we regressed subordinate participation on both supervisor confident demeanor condition and perceived competence. In the third equation, the relationship between subordinate participation and perceived competence was significant ( = -.32, B = -0.21, SE = 0.09, p = .026, R2 = .16) and the relationship between subordinate participation and supervisor confident demeanor condition became nonsignificant ( = -.13, B = -0.18, SE = 0.22, p = .36), thus meeting the requirements for mediation. The Sobel test was also significant (z = -2.14, p = .032). In contrast, the perceived threat variable did not mediate the effect of supervisor demeanor. Even though perceived threat increased when the supervisor displayed a confident demeanor ( = .37, B = 1.05, SE = 0.33, p = .002, R2 = .14), the relationship between subordinate participation and perceived threat in the third equation was not significant ( = -.13, B = -0.07, SE = 0.07, p = .30; Sobel z = -1.00, p = .32). Therefore, although the supervisor was perceived as more threatening, this perceived threat did not account for the effect on subordinate participation. The effect of the supervisor’s confident demeanor on participation was mediated by perceived competence only.DiscussionThis study replicated the findings from our previous studies. When the leader displayed a confident demeanor, he appeared more competent in the eyes of the follower. However, his confidence also led followers to participate less, even when the leader had invited them to do so. By using a more comprehensive measure of participation, we showed that when the leader used a confident demeanor, followers not only spoke less but also shared less critical task-relevant information that the leader lacked. Using a live confederate also allowed us to demonstrate that when the leader used a confident demeanor, followers were more likely to defer, even when the leader’s choice was incorrect. Interestingly, the majority of those who deferred in the confident condition (19 out of 25) were convinced the leader’s choice was the correct one; that is, they deferred sincerely. Only 6 participants deferred while still believing their original choice was the best one, or deferred insincerely. This is notable because, in a pre-test of this task using a different group of participants who did not engage in a discussion with a leader, but instead were presented with all the available evidence including the leader’s private information, only 10% (2 out of 21) chose the same candidate as the confederate. Thus the leader’s information was not convincing unless the leader presented it in person using a confident demeanor. Finally, this study focused on a context in which follower participation was invited, and found that the relationship between leader demeanor and follower participation was mediated by perceived competence, not perceived threat. In other words, followers who worked with leaders that displayed a confident demeanor inhibited their participation and deferred to the leader because they perceived the leader as more competent, not because he seemed more threatening. General DiscussionSummary of FindingsIn three studies that employed different methods, we found consistent evidence that while leaders’ confident demeanor can make them appear more competent, it can also stifle follower participation. The stifling effect emerged in a study in which participants interacted with each other and one participant was randomly assigned to the leader position, a study using a pre-recorded confederate as the leader, and a study that employed a live confederate as the leader. The leader’s confident demeanor stifled not only discretionary participation, wherein followers were asked about speaking up on their own initiative and expressing their unsolicited views to their leaders, but also invited participation, in which followers were invited to speak up and provide input by their leader. Therefore, the effect appears to be quite robust.We also found that this stifling effect can occur for two different reasons. In a context in which follower participation was not invited by the leader, and thus discretionary, leader confidence stifled participation because it made the leader appear more threatening. In a context in which follower participation was invited, leader confidence stifled participation because it made the leader appear more competent. See Figure 1 for a summary of the findings.Theoretical contributionsThe current research makes important contributions to a number of literatures, including nonverbal behavior, leadership, and small groups. Prior research on nonverbal behavior has uniformly found benefits for exhibiting a confident demeanor. That is, the vast majority of studies on nonverbal displays of confidence have documented that expressing confidence leads the individual to be seen as more competent and effective (Anderson & Kilduff, 2009; Awamleh & Gardner, 1999; Carli et al., 1995; Driskell et al., 1993; Ridgeway, 1987). We extend that work in an important way, by showing that leaders’ expression of confidence can also have a critical downside: the stifling of follower participation, which can increase the chances of making a bad group decision. Individuals in positions of leadership, therefore, seem to be caught in a dilemma: to appear competent, they benefit from nonverbally conveying competence and confidence in their abilities. However, by appearing competent, they can also decrease the chances that followers will provide input. A fruitful line of research would thus address how leaders can solve this dilemma. One possibility is that leaders can mitigate the stifling effect of their nonverbal confidence by also nonverbally expressing warmth; in other words combining a confident demeanor with an affiliative demeanor. Affiliation is often represented as orthogonal to agency (e.g., Horowitz et al., 2006; Kiesler, 1983; Wiggins, 1979) hence behaving in a warm and friendly manner should not reduce perceptions of the leader’s confidence or competence. At the same time, affiliative behaviors have been shown to increase participation. An interviewer’s use of a friendly demeanor, such as smiling, nodding, and leaning toward the interviewee, resulted in longer interviewee responses compared to a reserved or neutral demeanor (Gorden, 1975; Heller, 1972). Adding an affiliative component to a confident demeanor could elicit participation without affecting perceived competence.Solving this leadership dilemma is particularly important because research has shown the many benefits of follower participation. For example, joint decisions often benefit from a wider range of participation among members (DeDreu & West, 2001; Nemeth, 1986; Woolley et al., 2010). That is, groups often perform better when all members provide their ideas, opinions, and perspectives – in contrast to contexts in which the leader has disproportionate impact on the group’s decisions and judgments. Moreover, research on procedural justice has found that followers who express their views feel more fairly treated, satisfied, and in control (Hunton, Hall, & Price, 1998; Lind, Kanfer, & Earley, 1990; Witt, Andrews, & Kacmar, 2000). The current findings also might help shed light on a somewhat vexing issue in the literature on follower participation. Specifically, it has been widely documented that followers tend to stifle communication to their leaders. Across a variety of contexts, 30 to 40 percent of people surveyed say they often stay silent instead of bringing an important issue or concern to the attention of their leaders (Kelley, 1992; Kipnis & Schmidt, 1988), 70 percent will not say anything when they feel their leader is about to make a mistake (Chaleff, 1995), and 85 percent have, on at least one occasion, felt unable to raise a critical issue to their leaders (Milliken et al., 2003). In some contexts, lack of follower communication has life-threatening consequences. Over 80% of airplane accidents reviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board involved the failure of the First Officer to speak up about the Captain’s mistake (Milanovich et al., 1998), and nurses on surgical teams find it difficult to communicate problems with patient care to surgeons (Thomas, Sexton, & Helmreich, 2003).This lack of communication can occur despite leaders’ efforts to the contrary. Many leaders recognize the value of participation: researchers identified the “tendency to speak up” as one of eight qualities that leaders use to characterize their best followers (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988). Yet leaders who try to increase participation have found it difficult to do so (Klammer, Skarlicki, & Barclay, 2002). Why would follower participation be so difficult to increase? One possibility is that while leaders verbally express a desire for more participation, their nonverbal behavior might inadvertently dampen it. The nonverbal display of confidence is prevalent among leaders and leaders are even expected to show such behavior (see Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005 for a meta-analysis). Yet by showing such behavior, they might hamper their own efforts to increase participation among their followers.LimitationsWhile the current studies had a number of strengths, there were of course some limitations. First, we used laboratory methods, which allowed for greater precision and control in our measures of nonverbal behavior and participation. However, future research should examine these hypotheses outside the laboratory to help establish their ecological validity. Second, we used only one confederate in Studies 2 and 3. On the one hand, it helped rule out possible confounds such as third variables that might make some leaders more confident and their followers less participative. On the other hand, the use of one confederate made it difficult to determine if the mediating effects of competence and threat were a result of that confederate being particularly competent or threatening. Ideally, future research should replicate Studies 2 and 3 with multiple confederates. Finally, by studying undergraduate student samples, it is possible that participants were more susceptible to the effects of leaders’ confident demeanor. Among older adults with more life experience, it is possible that a leader’s confidence would have a smaller effect. ConclusionBy examining a widely used leadership nonverbal style as an antecedent to follower participation, the current research revealed a leadership dilemma: the confident demeanor that benefits leaders’ image has the unintended consequence of stifling follower participation. In turn, this stifling effect diminishes joint decision making by reducing the amount of information leaders receive and by making followers too willing to defer to the leader, even when the leader is misguided. Displaying a leader-like demeanor does, indeed, seem to have a downside.ReferencesAiken, L. S. & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.Anderson, C. & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. In A. P. Brief & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 55-89). Greenwich, CT: JAI PressAnderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). Why do dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face groups? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 491-503.Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J., Spataro, S. E. & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094-1110.Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 345-373.Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.Bates, S. (2005) Speak like a CEO: Secrets for commanding attention and getting results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, Jr., M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241-255.Carli, L. L., LaFleur, S. J., & Loeber, C. C. (1995). Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 1030-1041.Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler.Cohen J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.De Dreu, C. K. W. & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.Driskell, J. E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 541-553.Driskell, J. E., Olmstead, B. & Salas, E. (1993). Task cues, dominance cues, and influence in task groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 51-60.Dryer, D. C., & Horowitz, L. M. (1997). When do opposites attract? Interpersonal complementarity versus similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 592-603.Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G.& Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.Edinger, J. A. & Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal involvement and social control. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 30-56.Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350-383.Fenton-O'Creevy, M. (1998). Employee involvement and the middle manager: Evidence from a survey of organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 67-84.French, J. R. P., Jr. & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in Social Power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan.Fritz, S., Brown, F. W., Lunde, J. P. & Banset, E. A. (2005). Interpersonal skills for leadership (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Gilbert, G. R., & Hyde, A. C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public Administration Review, 48(6), 962-968.Gorden, R. L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J. & LeBeau, L. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898-924.Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669-692.Heller, K. (1972). Interview structure and interviewer style in initial interviews. In A. W. Siegman & B. Pope (Eds.), Studies in Dyadic Communication (pp. 9-28). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Herold, D. M. (1977). Two-way influence processes in leader-follower dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 20(2), 224-237.Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Holladay, S. J. & Coombs,W. T. (1993). Communicating visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405-427.Holladay, S. J. & Coombs,W. T. (1994). Speaking of visions and visions being spoken: An exploration of the effects of content and delivery on perceptions of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 165-189.Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. Leadership Quarterly, 3, 43-54.Horowitz, L. M., Wilson, K. R., Turan, B., Zolotsev, P., Constantino, M. J. & Henderson, L. (2006). How interpersonal motives clarify the meaning of interpersonal behavior: A revised circumplex model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 67-86.Howell, J. P. & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.Hunton, J. E., Hall, T. W., & Price, K. H. (1998). The value of voice in participative decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 788-797.Johnson, C. (1993). Gender and formal authority. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56, 193-210.Johnson, C. (1994). Gender, legitimate authority, and leader-subordinate conversations. American Sociological Review, 59, 122-135.Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday.Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H. & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265-284.Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 interpersonal circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human transactions. Psychological Review, 90, 185-214.Kipnis, D., & Schmidt, S. M. (1988). Upward-influence styles: Relationship with performance evaluations, salary, and stress. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(4), 528-542.Kish-Gephart, J. J., Detert, J. R., Trevino, L. K., & Edmondson, A. C. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 163-193.Klammer, J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Barclay, L. (2002). Speaking up in the Canadian military: The roles of voice, being heard, and generation in predicting civic virtue. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34(2), 122-130.Leffler, A., Gillespie, D. & Conaty, J. C. (1982). The effects of status differentiation on nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 153-161.Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision-making: One more look. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI PressLuthans, F., Luthans, K. W., Hodgetts, R. M., & Luthans, B. C. (2001). Positive approach to leadership (PAL) implications for today's organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 3-20.Milanovich, D. M., Driskell, J. E., Stout, R. J., & Salas, E. (1998). Status and cockpit dynamics: A review and empirical study. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and Practice, 2(3), 155-167.Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W. & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don't communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1453-1476.Murphy, N. A. (2005) Using thin slices for behavioral coding. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29, 235-246.Murphy, N. A. (2007). Appearing smart: The impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy, and behavior in social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 325-339.Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence processes. Psychological Review, 93, 10-20.Peterson, R. S. (2001). PB Technologies. Kellogg Dispute Resolution Research Center, Northwestern University.Peterson, S. J., Balthazard, P. A., Waldman, D. A., & Thatcher, R. W. (2008). Neuroscientific implications of psychological capital: Are the brains of optimistic, hopeful, confident, and resilient leaders different? Organizational Dynamics, 37(4), 342-353.Ridgeway, C. L. (1987). Nonverbal behavior, dominance, and the basis of status in task groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 683-694.Ridgeway, C. L., Berger, J. & Smith, L. (1985). Nonverbal cues and status: An expectation states approach. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 955-978.Ryan, K.D. & Oestreich, D.K. (1991) Driving Fear Out of the Workplace: How to overcome the invisible barriers to quality, productivity, and innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Shaw, M. E. (1961). A serial position effect in social influence on group decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 83-91.Snodgrass, S. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 154-158.Staw, B. M. & Ross, J. (1980). Commitment in an experimenting society: A study of the attribution of leadership from administrative scenarios. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 249-260.Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lanier, K., Nelson, B. N., Strickland, D. & Meyer, III, C. W. (1988). The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 798-810.Thomas, E. J., Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2003). Discrepant attitudes about teamwork among critical care nurses and physicians. Critical Care Medicine, 31(3), 956-959.Tiedens, L. Z. & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558-568.Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-making in the organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53(3), 341-358.Wiggins, J. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409-420.Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686-688.Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education International.Footnotes1. An arcsine transformation is used to normalize proportions before using them as dependent variables, because proportions are bounded by zero at the low end and one at the high end resulting in an S-shaped distribution (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003).2. This variable is missing for 3 subordinates for whom we could not measure eye contact because they were either turned away from the camera or their hair obstructed the view of their faces.3. This difference was not significant, χ2(1, N = 75) = 0.84, p = .36.Figure 1. The effects of the leader’s confident demeanor on follower participation.00Leader’s Confident Demeanor--+Mediator: Perceived CompetenceMediator: Perceived ThreatInvited ParticipationSpeaking time during decision-making discussionAmount of decision-relevant information sharedFollower DeferenceDiscretionary ParticipationConstructive criticism and raising important issues00Leader’s Confident Demeanor--+Mediator: Perceived CompetenceMediator: Perceived ThreatInvited ParticipationSpeaking time during decision-making discussionAmount of decision-relevant information sharedFollower DeferenceDiscretionary ParticipationConstructive criticism and raising important issues ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download