0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views24 pages

4.same Talk, Different Reaction - Communication, Emergent Leadership and Gender

academic

Uploaded by

zulhazmi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views24 pages

4.same Talk, Different Reaction - Communication, Emergent Leadership and Gender

academic

Uploaded by

zulhazmi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 24

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0268-3946.htm

Same talk, different reaction? Emergent


leadership,
Communication, emergent communication
and gender
leadership and gender
Sofia Schlamp 51
Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands Received 30 January 2019
Revised 11 January 2020
Fabiola H. Gerpott 30 April 2020
21 June 2020
Chair of Leadership, WHU-Otto Beisheim School of Management, 24 August 2020
Duesseldorf, Germany, and Accepted 24 August 2020

Sven C. Voelpel
Jacobs University Bremen, Bremen, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – We investigate the role of gender in linking communicative acts that occur in the interactions of
self-managed teams to emergent leadership. Specifically, this study presents a framework that differentiates
between agentic and communal task- and relations-oriented communication as predictors of emergent
leadership, and it hypothesizes that men and women do not differ in what they say but do differ in how they are
rewarded (i.e. ascribed informal leadership responsibilities) for their statements.
Design/methodology/approach – Interaction coding was used to capture the meeting communication of
116 members of 41 self-managed teams.
Findings – Men and women exhibited the same amount of agentic and communal task- and relations-oriented
communication and were equally likely to emerge as leaders. However, men experienced an emergent
leadership advantage when engaging in agentic and communal task-oriented behaviors. Agentic and
communal relations-oriented behaviors did not predict emergent leadership.
Research limitations/implications – The findings imply that theories could be more precise in
differentiating between objective behaviors (i.e. actor perspective) and perceptions thereof (i.e. observer
perspective) to understand why women experience a disadvantage in assuming leadership roles.
Practical implications – Although women displayed the same verbal behaviors as men, they experienced
different consequences. Organizations can provide unconscious bias training programs, which help increase
employees’ self-awareness of a potential positive assessment bias toward men’s communication.
Originality/value – This research utilizes an innovative, fine-grained coding approach to gather data that
add to previous studies showing that, unlike men, women experience a disadvantage in terms of emergent
leadership ascriptions when they deviate from stereotypically expected behavior.
Keywords Leadership, Communication, Gender differences
Paper type Research paper

Although the gender gap in emergent leadership – i.e. the ascription of social influence by
others – has become smaller in recent years, women are still less likely than men to emerge as
leaders in initially leaderless teams (Badura et al., 2018). This imbalance in emergent
leadership has at least two detrimental implications for the goal of reaching an equal gender
distribution in leadership positions. First, the team members who emerge as leaders possess
an extensive influence on team outcomes (Taggar et al., 1999). Given that a growing number
of firms implement self-managed teams (Ilgen et al., 2005), this means that women are at a
disadvantage in their possibilities of exhibiting social influence over outcomes. Second, Journal of Managerial Psychology
emergent leaders are also more likely to receive formal leadership positions in the future Vol. 36 No. 1, 2021
pp. 51-74
(Badura et al., 2018). Hence, if men are more likely to emerge as leaders in self-managed teams, © Emerald Publishing Limited
0268-3946
this implies that they also have an increased likelihood of being promoted into formal DOI 10.1108/JMP-01-2019-0062
JMP leadership positions compared to women. Studying emergent leadership from a gender
36,1 perspective thus constitutes an important step in gaining a deeper understanding of the
micro-level processes that, in the long run, may contribute to unequal gender distributions in
leadership positions.
Scholars have contributed much to identifying general factors that may hinder women from
assuming leadership, such as lower work-related self-confidence than their male counterparts
(Martin and Phillips, 2017), a lack of masculine characteristics (Anderson and Klofstad, 2012) or
52 gender stereotypes that characterize women as high on communal traits (i.e. warm, sensitive), but
low on agentic traits (i.e. competitive, dominant; Badura et al., 2018). Nevertheless, we know little
about the concrete behaviors that occur in teams and that result in some members being assigned
more social influence than others over time. This lack of research is surprising against the
backdrop that emergent leadership is constructed in interactions between team members
(Uhl-Bien, 2006; DeRue and Ashford, 2010; Gerpott et al., 2019). One exception in this regard is a
recent meta-analysis by Badura et al. (2018), in which the authors found that participation
(i.e. amount of time spent talking) mediated the relationship between gender and leadership
emergence. In other words, men were more likely than women to emerge as leaders due to their
higher verbal participation rate. Although this constitutes an interesting insight, it does not tell us
much about the specific verbal behaviors that male and female team members use to emerge as
leaders. For example, do men engage in more task-oriented behaviors and women in more
relations-oriented behaviors, resulting in different likelihoods of emerging as leaders? Or do both
sexes equally engage in specific types of communication, but these verbal behaviors result in
different outcomes depending on whether male or female team members exhibit them?
To answer these questions, we provide a nuanced definition of task- and relations-oriented
behaviors that allow us to untangle the ambiguous evidence regarding their role in being
ascribed emergent leadership from a gender perspective. Task- and relations-oriented
behaviors are two broad, widely studied categories of leader behaviors (e.g. Burke et al., 2006;
Stogdill, 1974; Judge et al., 2004; Yukl, 2011). Evidence indicates that particularly task-
oriented behaviors are important for emergent leadership (Gerpott et al., 2019). The previous
literature has often mistakenly equated task-oriented behaviors with agentic qualities and
relations-oriented behaviors with communal qualities (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014; Lanaj and
Hollenbeck, 2015). In contrast, we argue that both task- and relations-oriented behaviors can
be expressed in an agentic or in a communal way. Drawing from social role theory and the
backlash effect (Eagly, 1987; Wood and Eagly, 2002), we propose that this conceptual
differentiation is essential to understanding why women may indeed be less likely to emerge
as leaders, as “the competent task contributions of women [are] . . . more likely to be ignored
or to evoke negative reactions than those of men” (Eagly and Karau, 2002, p. 584). We argue
that the latter is the case when women exhibit task-oriented behaviors in an agentic way, as
this contradicts their gender role. However, when female team members express task-
oriented behaviors in a communal way, this may represent one opportunity to fulfill both role
expectations: behaving like a leader (i.e. contributing to the task) and behaving like a woman
(i.e. making communal statements). In other words, women can exhibit social influence by
engaging in communal, task-oriented behaviors, which represent communicative acts that
combine masculine and feminine characteristics (Keck, 2019). This line of argumentation
suggests a moderation effect such that agentic task-oriented behaviors are positively
associated with emergent leadership, particularly when men exhibit them, and that
communal task-oriented behaviors are positively associated with emergent leadership,
particularly when women exhibit them.
In terms of a positive association between relations-oriented behaviors and emergent
leadership, the evidence is more ambiguous, with some studies arguing for it (Bales and
Slater, 1955; Pescosolido, 2002) and others finding no link (Taggar et al., 1999; Lanaj and
Hollenbeck, 2015). We draw from work that suggests that men – unlike women – benefit from
behaving differently than expected (Hentschel et al., 2018). That is, men are praised for Emergent
displaying any relations-oriented behaviors (i.e. agentic and communal) and thus should leadership,
achieve higher emergent leadership ratings. In contrast, women are expected to care about
the relationships in a team. Hence, they are not ascribed any social influence for doing so.
communication
To summarize, we expect men to receive higher emergent leadership ratings for three and gender
communication categories (i.e. agentic task-oriented, agentic relations-oriented and communal
relations-oriented behaviors). In contrast, women benefit when engaging in communal task-
oriented behaviors, as these are in line with both their gender role (i.e. being communal) and 53
expectations toward a leader role (i.e. engaging in task-oriented behaviors).
Our research makes three contributions to the literature. First, our conceptual
differentiation between agentic and communal task- and relations-oriented behaviors helps
to connect the leadership, gender and communication literature more tightly to offer new
assumptions on the behavioral combinations that may help or hinder male and female team
members from emerging as leaders. Second, we extend preliminary evidence that shows that
the differences between men’s and women’s communication styles may be smaller than
suggested (Eagly et al., 2003) or even nonexistent (Mehl et al., 2007). This means that
differences in emergent leadership may not be driven by objective differences in behaviors,
but that agentic and communal task- and relations-oriented verbal behaviors are associated
with emergent leadership in different ways depending on the gender of the team member
exhibiting these behaviors. Lastly, our work contributes to a recent research stream that
utilizes a communicative perspective on leadership (DeRue et al., 2011; Fairhurst and
Connaughton, 2014; Van Quaquebeke and Felps, 2018). In line with the conceptual
understanding of leadership as a socially distributed phenomenon, we utilized interaction
analysis to generate copious data on the verbal behaviors underlying emergent leadership in
team interactions. This allows us to investigate actor effects (i.e. differences in actual
behaviors) and interpret differences in emergent leadership in terms of observer effects (i.e.
differences in perceptions).

Theoretical background and hypotheses


The challenges women face when striving for leadership positions can be explained by social
role theory and the backlash effect (Eagly, 1987; Wood and Eagly, 2002), which represent our
overarching framework in this study. According to social role theory, society has clear
expectations of how individuals should behave and adhere to their social roles. These
expectations are rooted in traditional gender roles in which men are seen as independent and
strong, and women are seen as interdependent and supportive (Eagly, 1987). Such
stereotypes can be descriptive (i.e. what women and men are like) and prescriptive (i.e. how
women and men should behave; Heilman, 2001). Individuals who deviate from these
stereotypical role expectations are penalized (Cialdini and Trost, 1998).
Social role theory is also relevant in an organizational context, in which individuals believe
that women and men display different leadership styles (descriptive) and need different
leadership styles to be promoted (prescriptive; Vinkenburg et al., 2011). Therefore,
stereotypes can be particularly negative for women who try to climb the organizational
ladder (Heilman, 2001, 2012). On the one hand, women are sanctioned when they violate the
feminine gender role and display agentic behaviors (Rudman and Glick, 2001). Women who
engage in stereotypical male behaviors, such as directive leadership behaviors, are evaluated
negatively (Eagly et al., 1992). On the other hand, when women display communal behaviors,
they are neither sanctioned nor rewarded. For example, Heilman and Chen (2005) have
proposed that women and men are evaluated differently when they perform altruistic
behaviors. Altruistic behaviors, such as helping and cooperating, are closely related to the
feminine role stereotype. Altruistic behaviors by men result in favorable reactions (Heilman
JMP and Chen, 2005), which shows that men are advantaged when violating normative role
36,1 prescriptions. In contrast, women do not benefit from displaying this behavior (Heilman and
Chen, 2005), which illustrates that women are not advantaged when behaving in line with
prescriptive stereotypes. However, women can benefit from possessing counter-stereotypical
qualities under specific circumstances. According to Schaumberg and Flynn (2017), this can
occur when the agentic qualities are competence-based (e.g. self-resilience rather than
dominance). In addition, Rudman and Glick (1999) have stated that women could have an
54 advantage if they possess both agentic and communal qualities because they would fulfill
people’s expectations of a leader’s role and women’s socially prescribed gender role.
Building on this theoretical framework, we seek to illustrate how men and women are
evaluated differently in terms of emergent leadership when expressing behaviors that are
connected with leadership ascriptions (i.e. task- and relations-oriented behaviors) in an
agentic or communal way. To preview the structure of the next sections, we first introduce the
idea of typically masculine (i.e. agency) and typically feminine (i.e. communion)
characteristics and then contribute a more nuanced differentiation of several types of
verbal behavior (i.e. task- and relations-oriented behavior expressed in an agentic or
communal manner). Second, we develop our argument on the absence of gender differences in
verbal behaviors, thereby drawing from conceptual and empirical work related to the gender
similarity hypothesis (Hyde, 2005). Lastly, we develop our hypotheses stating that agentic
and communal task- and relations-oriented verbal behaviors are associated with emergent
leadership in different ways depending on the gender of the team member exhibiting these
behaviors.

Connecting agency and communion with task- and relations-oriented communication


Bakan (1966) introduced agency and communion as two fundamental modes of human
existence. According to Bakan (1966), agency describes an organism’s existence as an
individual, and communion refers to an individual’s participation in some larger organism of
which the individual is a part. Subsequently, the personality literature (Hogan, 1983)
translated Bakan’s (1966) assumptions into the argument that all personality traits can be
mapped in terms of two underlying dimensions, namely traits related to getting ahead (i.e.
agentic traits) and traits related to getting along (i.e. communal traits).
Social role theory also drew on the differentiation between agency and communion by
stating that men are expected to be providers, while women are expected to be care-givers
(Wood and Eagly, 2002). Accordingly, men are associated with agentic traits such as being
aggressive, independent, ambitious and prone to act as leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Wood
and Eagly, 2002). In contrast, women are associated with communal traits such as being
friendly, interdependent and helpful (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Wood and Eagly, 2002).
The leadership literature has often described agentic behaviors as overlapping with
leadership prototypes (i.e. people’s images of ideal leaders) and communal behaviors as
activities that are in line with lower-status stereotypes (Eagly and Karau, 2002). For example,
scholars have defined agency in terms of initiating structure (e.g. the leader defines the roles
and initiates actions; Bass, 1990), competence (Wojciszke, 2005), dominance (Wiggins, 1979,
1991) and self-profitability (Abele and Wojciszke, 2007). In contrast, community has been
defined as striving for social acceptance and connections with others (Ybarra et al., 2008),
other-profitable behaviors (Graziano et al., 2007), and expressing interpersonal warmth (Carli,
2001). The concept of agency and communion can also be transferred to people’s
communication. Individuals can express their statements in an agentic (i.e. self-oriented) or
communal (i.e. other-oriented) way.
In the leadership literature, scholars have differentiated two broad classes or types of
communication (Abele and Bruckm€ uller, 2013): task-oriented behaviors, which refer to
activities directly related to the task at hand, and relations-oriented behaviors, which refer to Emergent
verbal behaviors that express and define one’s relationship with others (Bales, 1950; Hemphill leadership,
and Coons, 1957) [1]. Theoretically, both types of communication (i.e. task- and relations-
oriented verbal behaviors) can be expressed in both ways (i.e. agentic and communal).
communication
Task-oriented behaviors expressed in an agentic way refer to activities aimed at and gender
accomplishing the team task, thereby placing one’s ideas and interest above those of others.
Examples of task-oriented behaviors that are exhibited with the underlying purpose of
advancing one’s agenda are delegating tasks, instructing others what to do, and proposing 55
ideas. That is, these behaviors are aimed at serving the self (Abele and Wojciszke, 2007),
pursuing one’s own goals (Bakan, 1966), and striving for power and independence
(McAdams, 1988; Cuddy et al., 2012). Examples of agentic task-oriented statements are, “You
go first” or, “We try my solution.”
In contrast, task-oriented behaviors expressed in a communal way describe activities
aimed at accomplishing the team task, thereby ensuring harmony in the group. Examples
of task-oriented behaviors that are exhibited with the underlying purpose of ensuring the
group’s welfare and unity are asking others to do something, proposing a plan, or
inquiring to consider others’ ideas. These behaviors aim to attend to others (Abele and
Wojciszke, 2007), maintain relationships (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001) and
express friendliness and unselfishness (Eagly and Wood, 1991). Examples of communal
task-oriented statements are, “Could you go first?” or, “What do you think about trying
my solution?”
Relations-oriented statements expressed in an agentic way describe relational behaviors
aimed at differentiating oneself from others and striving for power (Abele and Wojciszke,
2014). Agentic relations-oriented behaviors, such as interrupting, promoting oneself or
criticizing someone, signal that the individual is more focused on his or her own interests than
on others’ preferences (Swaab et al., 2014). These behaviors are aimed at maintaining
independence from others by focusing on the self (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Examples of
agentic relations-oriented statements are, “I got the best grade in the class” or, “Let me do it,
you are too slow at typing.”
In contrast, relations-oriented statements expressed in a communal way describe
relational behaviors aimed at including team members to maintain group harmony (Abele
and Wojciszke, 2007, 2014). Unlike agentic relations-oriented behaviors, which focus on the
self, communal relations behaviors focus on interpersonal relations (Barbuto and Gifford,
2010). Examples of these behaviors are praising others, not drawing attention to oneself
(Oakley, 2000), as well as helping and supporting others (Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt,
2001). Examples of communal relations-oriented statements are, “That’s an excellent idea” or,
“Is there anything you want to add?”

Communication and gender similarities


There is a widespread belief that women and men communicate differently in terms of how
much they talk and the purpose (i.e. to seek independence or intimacy) they seek to achieve
through their communication. These gender differences have been promoted through
personal anecdotes and have been published in non-fiction books, such as the best-seller book
You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Tannen (1990). However,
contrary to the predominant focus on gender differences, there are more gender similarities
than is commonly believed (Bourantas and Papalexandris, 1990; Eagly and Johnson, 1990;
Hyde, 2005). For example, a study by Mehl et al. (2007) based on 396 participants’ verbal
behavior found no evidence of sex differences in daily word use.
Furthermore, in a meta-analysis, Hyde (2005) found that verbal behaviors during group
interaction show only small gender differences. For example, men tend to display a larger
JMP number of interruptions than women. Nonverbal behaviors such as smiling indicated a
36,1 moderate gender difference; women smile more than men when they know they are being
observed. There is a small gender difference in smiling when individuals are not aware of
being observed (Hyde, 2005) such that women smile more than men. Communication research
in the service industry also suggests that there are no differences in the communication
content when comparing how men and women complain (Garrett et al., 1997).
In the context of leadership, meta-analytic evidence has shown that men and women do
56 not differ in task-oriented or relations-oriented leadership behaviors (Eagly and Johnson,
1990) and that gender differences in team roles (Balderson and Broderick, 1996) as well as
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles are rather small (Eagly
et al., 2003). We therefore do not expect differences in male and female team members’ usage
of different types of communication:
H1. Female and male team members do not differ in verbal behaviors in that they express
a similar amount of (a) agentic task-oriented, (b) agentic relations-oriented, (c)
communal task-oriented and (d) communal relations-oriented behaviors.

Task-oriented behaviors and emergent leadership


Task-oriented behaviors play a fundamental role in teams accomplishing their main
responsibilities (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015), which implies that teams would do well to
accept the social influence of team members who greatly contribute to the team task.
Demonstrating task-oriented behaviors during group interaction signals knowledge of the
subject, thus enforcing an individual’s leadership status (Gerpott et al., 2019).
In the context of gender and emergent leadership, however, task-oriented behaviors might
not equally predict men’s and women’s emergent social influence. This is due to the tendency
to evaluate women more negatively for exhibiting agentic behaviors, such as displaying
dominance (Williams and Tiedens, 2016) or emotional stability (Neubert and Taggar, 2004).
When women engage in task-oriented behaviors, they may therefore experience a female
disadvantage when they exhibit such behaviors in an agentic rather than a communal
manner. This potential negative evaluation is particularity relevant for women aiming to take
on leadership roles because leadership is often automatically associated with agentic traits
(Foschi, 2000; Eagly and Carli, 2012). Stated differently, the communal qualities associated
with women are inconsistent with people’s expectations of leaders (Schein, 1975; Eagly and
Karau, 2002). The incongruity between a leader’s role and women’s socially prescribed
gender role often results in a backlash effect (Rudman and Glick, 1999), in which women who
exhibit agentic behaviors are often sanctioned for violating their gender role (Schein, 1975).
Unlike female leaders, male leaders are expected to display a more authoritarian leadership
style aimed at accomplishing the task (Hogue, 2016). Therefore, we expect that male team
members will be awarded social influence when displaying dominant and controlling (i.e.
agentic) task-oriented behavior.
H2a. There is an interaction effect between gender and agentic task-oriented behaviors
when predicting emergent leadership such that male (female) team members are
more (less) likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit agentic task-oriented
behaviors.
Exhibiting task-oriented behaviors is key for individuals to emerge as leaders (Slater, 1955;
Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015). To successfully navigate the emergent leadership labyrinth,
women may profit from displaying task-oriented behaviors in a non-agentic manner. That is,
women are well advised to express task-oriented behaviors more collaboratively and less
hierarchically (Hall and Friedman, 1999) while showing social skills (Riggio and Reichard,
2008). Indeed, the previous literature on gender and leadership indicates that team members
evaluate women positively when they exhibit leadership and communal-oriented behaviors Emergent
(Eagly and Carli, 2003; Rosette and Tost, 2010). In addition, Forsyth et al. (1997) conducted a leadership,
study in a laboratory setting to understand how individuals evaluate task-oriented and
relations-oriented female leaders. The results show that participants who had conservative
communication
attitudes toward the role of women in society rated task-oriented female leaders as less and gender
friendly than relationship-oriented leaders. This indicates that women are perceived as
effective leaders only when they display an array of qualities, e.g. strength and sensitivity
(Johnson et al., 2008) or masculine and feminine traits (Keck, 2019). It should thus be 57
particularly advantageous for women to exhibit task-oriented communal behaviors because
their expression is in line with their social role. For men, the situation is more complicated. As
we will outline in more detail below, if men display communal relations-oriented behaviors,
this unequivocally contradicts the male gender role and adds a not-expected quality to the
men’s leadership repertoire, which may be rewarded in terms of higher emergent leadership
ascriptions. In contrast, displaying task-oriented behaviors in a communal way neither truly
contradicts the male gender role as men are expected to be task-oriented (Kidder, 2002), nor
speaks to the expected assertiveness from male behavior (Wood and Eagly, 2012).
Accordingly, and in line with social role theory, men may not particularly profit from
engaging in this type of communication in terms of emergent leadership ascriptions. Overall,
we thus expect women who exhibit task-oriented communal behaviors to be more likely than
men to emerge as leaders.
H2b. There is an interaction effect between gender and communal task-oriented
behaviors in predicting emergent leadership such that female (male) team members
are more (less) likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit communal task-
oriented behaviors.

Relations-oriented behaviors and emergent leadership


Relations-oriented leadership behaviors refer to activities such as showing respect and caring
for followers (Bales, 1950), as well as being supportive of, developing, and empowering others
(Yukl et al., 2002). The predominant tendency is to describe relations-oriented behaviors as
positive in nature and note that their purpose is to benefit others rather than profiting from
them. We propose that relations-oriented statements expressed in an agentic way describe
relations-oriented behaviors aimed at differentiating oneself from others and striving for
power (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014), while relations-oriented behaviors expressed in a
communal way aim at creating unity and maintaining harmony within the group (Abele and
Wojcizke, 2014).
Similar to task-oriented behaviors, relations-oriented behaviors might not predict men and
women’s emergent leadership equally. When relations-oriented behaviors are expressed in an
agentic way, women are evaluated more negatively than men for not behaving in line with
their gender role because they violate the female gender stereotypes of being sensitive to
others’ feelings (Rudman and Glick, 1999). According to role congruity theory (Eagly et al.,
2000), individuals are positively evaluated if their behavior is aligned with their group’s
typical social role. Consequently, masculine prescriptive attributes such as being competitive,
aggressive and forceful are considered more likeable and appropriate in men than in women
(Prentice and Carranza, 2004). For example, a study by Rudman et al. (2012) has shown that
people responded more positively to men who exhibited dominance than to women who
did so.
H3a. There is an interaction effect between gender and agentic relations-oriented
behaviors when predicting emergent leadership such that male (female) team
members are more (less) likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit agentic
relations-oriented behaviors.
JMP Relations-oriented behaviors expressed in a communal way aim at creating unity and
36,1 maintaining harmony within the group (Abele and Wojciszke, 2014). We propose that women
do not benefit from communal relations-oriented behaviors. This is because being helpful and
collaborative is normatively required of them. A study by Heilman and Chen (2005) illustrates
this expectation in the context of men and women displaying altruistic citizenship behaviors.
In the transformational leadership literature, similar results were found. According to
Hentschel et al. (2018), transformational leadership consists of communal behaviors (i.e.
58 behaviors aligned with female stereotypes). Nevertheless, transformational male leaders
scored higher in promotability than their female counterparts, which suggests that men
receive a communality bonus (Hentschel et al., 2018). This means that while women are not
rewarded when displaying communal behavior because it is stereotypically expected of them,
men are rewarded when they display such behavior because they exceed expectations.
Relatedly, Loughlin et al. (2011) have created scenarios to study how male and female leaders
were evaluated when engaging in individual consideration, a behavior that is characteristic of
transformational leaders. The results indicate that both male and female managers were
penalized when they failed to engage in individual consideration. However, men (unlike
women) who engaged in this behavior were positively evaluated. In other words, there is a
difference between displaying a behavior and being acknowledged for it. Based on this
evidence regarding relations-oriented behaviors and communality being expected from
women, but not from men, we hypothesize:
H3b. There is an interaction effect between gender and communal relations-oriented
behaviors when predicting emergent leadership such that male (female) team
members are more (less) likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit communal
relations-oriented behaviors.

Methods
Sample and procedure
We collected data at a private university in Germany and recruited 116 students (51 females,
65 males, Mage 5 19.28, SDage 5 1.56) who worked for 15 weeks in 41 teams on developing
innovative solutions for real-world organizational problems (e.g. developing new business
models). To create a realistic project scenario, as often occurs in the business world, the best
teams had the opportunity to receive funding for their business model from investors.
Participants were randomly allocated to teams of two to three members to ensure that they
did not know one another before the teamwork. Our criteria for the team size were based on
previous literature indicating that teams are “a distinguishable set of two or more people who
interact, dynamically, interdependently, and adaptively towards a common and valued goal/
objective/mission, who have been assigned specific roles or functions to perform, and who
have a limited lifespan of membership” (Salas et al., 1992, p. 4). Furthermore, this resembles
workplace settings, where it is common for small teams of two to three people to work on a
project (Costa et al., 2014).
Before we conducted the study (i.e. in the seminar’s first session), a research assistant
informed the participants that videotaping their meetings was only for research purposes,
and that the course instructor would not have access to the recordings. Upon receiving this
information, the participants provided their informed consent and completed a demographics
questionnaire.
At the midpoint of the project period (i.e. the seventh week working on the project), all
teams were videotaped during a regular team meeting in a laboratory. After the recording
session, participants completed a survey on their perceptions of one another’s leadership as
exhibited during the meeting. The decision to record the participants at this time was based
on previous research showing that teams experience an important transition that intensifies Emergent
their influence-related communication at the midpoint (Gersick, 1988, 1989) and the fact that leadership,
stereotypes are less likely to be apparent (Badura et al., 2018). First, at the midpoint, teams
become aware that time is running out and they need to deliver, which leads to increased
communication
pressure and often results in the reexamination of group strategies, procedures and goals and gender
(Gersick, 1988). This manifests in intensive interactions (i.e. most team interactions occur half-
way during the project; Gerpott et al., 2019), which in turn relate to social influence and
conflict (Tuckman, 1965; Gersick, 1989). Second, research on emergent leadership and gender 59
shows that, in teams that interact for a longer time period, there is a smaller gender gap in
emergent leadership, which is explained by the notion that team members rely less heavily on
gender stereotypical believes (Badura et al., 2018).

Agentic and communal task- and relations-oriented verbal behaviors


To capture the verbal behaviors of team members in line with our conceptual definition of
task- and relations-oriented agentic and communal behaviors, we used a predefined coding
scheme (see Table 1 and Appendix for a sample transcript). We created the scheme based on
previous behavior-oriented operationalization of the concepts of interest (Eagly and Wood,
1991; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Madera et al., 2009). Behaviors that could not be

Communal Agentic

Task-oriented behaviors
Request Command
For example, ask others to do something For example, tell others to do something
“Could you write down the advantages of our “Write down our ideas,” “You finish this by tomorrow.”
solution?” “Could you finish this by yourself?”
Propose plan Directive plan
For example, suggest others initiate an activity For example, instruct others to initiate an activity
“Should we practice it?” “Maybe everybody could “We have to discuss this first,” “We will skip this”
tell their own solution first”
Promote idea – Polite Promote idea – Dominating
For example, ask others to consider one’s idea For example, tell others to accept one’s idea
“Could you look at my idea?” “What do you think “We try my solution,” “My idea works better”
about trying my solution?”
Relations-oriented behaviors
Express humility/Praising others Self-promotion
For example, undermining one’s work or For example, promote one’s skills or achievements
praising others
“Oh, no, I was lucky,” “Thank you” “I can talk really well,” “I got the best grade of the class”
Encourage participation Interrupt
For example, active listening or addressing quiet For example, interrupt others when they are talking
participants
“Uhum,” “Is there anything you want to add to “Person A: My idea is the following, why do not we. . .
this idea?” Person B (interruption): Let’s go for the idea we had last
week”
Support and empower Criticize someone
For example, help or offer support For example, make negative comments about others
“That’s an excellent idea,” “Do you need help?” “Even you can do that,” “Let me do it, you are too slow at Table 1.
typing” Verbal behavior coding
Note(s): During the meeting, each statement was annotated with only one code. Statements that did not fit any scheme with sample
of these codes were coded as “other” and were not included in the analysis statements
JMP classified according to the coding scheme (e.g. laughter, organizational statements) were
36,1 coded as “other.” To ensure the reliability of the instrument, we sent the coding scheme to
three scholars (i.e. academic experts in the field of leadership and verbal behavior) and
incorporated their feedback. Furthermore, we asked two research assistants who had
experience in coding verbal behaviors from videos to test the coding scheme and provide us
with feedback on whether it was possible to clearly differentiate between behaviors. After
this second round of revision, we asked a different group of four research assistants to learn
60 the coding scheme. We applied a fully crossed design to establish interrater reliability, which
means that each research assistant double-coded one complete video from the data set with
an expert coder before being allowed to code videotaped meetings alone. All research
assistants received a satisfying Cohen’s kappa value (Cohen, 1960) of at least Ƙ 5 0.70,
meaning that there was a substantial agreement on the coding of verbal behaviors. After the
meetings were coded, all verbal behaviors were standardized per 60-min period to ensure that
the length of the team meetings did not influence the analysis. In other words, we multiplied
the frequency of behaviors used in the meeting by 60, and we divided this number by the
meeting length.
Agentic task-oriented statements were coded when a participant commanded (delegated a
task to others), engaged in directive planning (told others what to do), and proposed an idea
dominantly (told others to accept his/her idea).
Communal task-oriented statements were coded when a participant made a polite request
(asked others to do something), proposed a plan (suggested others should initiate an activity),
or proposed an idea politely (asked others to consider his/her idea).
Agentic relation-oriented statements Agentic relation-oriented statements were coded when
a participant engaged in self-promotion (promoted his/her skills or experience), interrupted
(disturbed others when they were contributing), and criticized someone (made negative
comments about others).
Communal relations-oriented statements were coded when a participant expressed humility
or offered praise (undermining one’s achievements, praising others), encouraged
participation (addressing quiet participants), and supported and empowered others
(helping or offering support).
Emergent leadership was assessed by asking participants to complete a questionnaire in
which they had to rate one another according to four items (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015;
Gerpott et al., 2019) after the videotaped meeting. Example items are as follows: “Team
member A has taken a leadership role in our team,” “Team member A has tried to
influence the team,” “Team member A has set goals for the team” and “Team member A
provided the team with direction.” The respondents indicated their answers on a six-
point Likert scale (1 5 completely disagree, 6 5 completely agree). We calculated the
individual emergent leadership scores by averaging the ratings the other team members
assigned.

Results
Our analytical approach resulted in a total of 9,042 coded communicative acts
(i.e. unstandardized behaviors) from all the participants. Since the meeting length among
groups varied, to test our hypotheses we standardized behaviors per 60-min period. The
descriptive statistics indicate that communal behaviors were the most frequently used
form of communication. Specifically, 3,729 statements were classified as communal
relations-oriented verbal behaviors (average per meeting: 90.95) and 2,503
communicative acts as communal task-oriented (average per meeting: 61.05).
Furthermore, we coded a total of 1,543 agentic task-oriented behaviors (average per
meeting: 37.63) and 1,367 agentic relations-oriented statements (average per Emergent
meeting: 30.90). leadership,
Table 2 displays the mean and standard deviation of standardized verbal behaviors per
individual, in addition to correlations between verbal behaviors, emergent leadership and
communication
gender. Emergent leadership correlates with agentic task-oriented (r 5 0.27, p < 0.01) and and gender
communal task-oriented (r 5 0.24, p 5 0.01) behaviors. Emergent leadership does not
correlate with agentic relations-oriented (r 5 0.13, p 5 0.16) or communal relations-oriented
(r 5 0.14, p 5 0.13) behaviors. Furthermore, as shown in Table 2, gender does not correlate 61
with emergent leadership (r 5 0.09, p 5 0.36) or with any verbal behavior categories.
The results of a t-test showed that men and women were equally likely to emerge as
leaders, t(114) 5 0.93, p 5 0.36. We also ran a second t-test to determine whether there was a
difference in the overall frequency of men’s and women’s shown verbal-behaviors. This
is because gender differences in communication quantity can potentially impact the
emergent leadership ratings (Bass, 1954; Gerpott et al., 2018). The results indicate that men
and women did not differ with regard to the total frequency of their verbal behaviors
t(114) 5 0.34, p 5 0.74.
To test whether male and female team members assigned different emergent leadership
ratings to other team members of the same or opposite sex, we ran two additional t-tests.
When comparing male and female team members in terms of their emergent leadership rating
of peers, we found that those ratings were not influenced by the gender of the assessing team
member (women t(71) 5 0.45, p 5 0.66), men (t(85) 5 0.49, p 5 0.63). In other words, men and
women were not biased toward providing more positive emergent leadership ratings to peers
of their own or the other gender.

Hypotheses tests
Hypothesis 1 stated that there are no gender differences in the expression of agentic task-
oriented, agentic relations-oriented, communal task-oriented and communal relations-
oriented behaviors. We ran four t-tests to test this Hypothesis. Providing support for
Hypothesis 1, we found that men and women did not differ in their agentic task-oriented,
t(114) 5 0.19, p 5 0.85; communal task-oriented, t(114) 5 0.35, p 5 0.72; agentic relation-
oriented, t(114) 5 1.2, p 5 0.24; or communal relation-oriented, t(114) 5 0.24, p 5 0.36
communication.
To investigate the extent to which agentic and communal behaviors predict emergent
leadership in men and women, we conducted multilevel regression analysis, which is
beneficial for analyzing data nested in hierarchies, in this case, the individuals (level 1)

Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Gender 1.55 0.50


2. Emergent leadership 3.34 0.73 –0.09
3. Agentic task-oriented behaviors 17.49 17.97 0.02 0.27**
4. Agentic relations-oriented behaviors 13.15 12.36 0.11 0.13 0.29**
5. Communal task-oriented behaviors 27.83 20.07 0.03 0.24* 0.34** 0.16
6. Communal relations-oriented behaviors 40.28 28.03 –0.02 0.14 0.37** 0.27** 0.30** Table 2.
Note(s): All variables were measured at the individual level (N 5 116; 1 5 female, 2 5 male); p < 0.05,*
Descriptive statistics
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed). The mean values for verbal behaviors refer to the standardized behaviors per person per and intercorrelations of
60-min period study variables
JMP organized in teams (level 2). We used emergent leadership as the dependent variable, and
36,1 gender and verbal behaviors as the independent variables.
Hypothesis 2a suggested that women (compared to men) are less likely to emerge as
leaders when they exhibit agentic task-oriented behaviors. The interaction effect between
gender and the agentic task-oriented behaviors regarding emergent leadership was
significant (F 5 6.11, p 5 0.003), thus supporting the Hypothesis. Men were significantly
more likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibited agentic task-oriented behaviors
62 t(111.67) 5 3.26, p 5 0.001. On the other hand, women were significantly less likely to emerge
as leaders when they exhibited agentic task-oriented behaviors t(98.65) 5 2.36, p 5 0.02 (see
Figure 1).
Furthermore, we investigated the interaction effect between gender and communal
task-oriented behaviors in predicting emergent leadership. Hypothesis 2b suggested that
female (male) team members are more (less) likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit
communal task-oriented behaviors. The interaction effect between gender and communal
task-oriented behaviors on emergent leadership is significant, (F 5 4.51, p 5 0.02).
However, contrary to our expectations, the results show that men are significantly more
likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibit communal task-oriented behaviors,
t(31.87) 5 2.51, p 5 0.17. In contrast, women are significantly less likely to emerge as
leaders when they exhibit communal task-oriented behaviors, t(38.48) 5 2.76, p 5 0.009
(see Figure 2).
Hypothesis 3a proposed that male (female) team members are more (less) likely to emerge
as leaders when they exhibit agentic relations-oriented behaviors. The interaction effect
between gender and agentic relations-oriented behaviors on emergent leadership is not
significant (F 5 1.55, p 5 0.23). The Hypothesis was therefore not supported (see Figure 3).
We also tested Hypothesis 3b to analyze whether male team members compared to female
team members were more likely to emerge as leaders when they exhibited communal
relations-oriented behaviors. The results show that there was no interaction effect between
gender and communal relations-oriented behaviors on emergent leadership (F 5 0.95,
p 5 0.39). Hence, Hypothesis 3b was not supported (see Figure 4).

Figure 1.
Emergent leadership
and agentic task-
oriented behaviors
exhibited by men
and women
Emergent
leadership,
communication
and gender

63

Figure 2.
Emergent leadership
and communal task-
oriented behaviors
exhibited by men
and women

Figure 3.
Emergent leadership
and agentic relations-
oriented behaviors
exhibited by men
and women

Discussion
This study analyzed the verbal behaviors of men and women in self-managed teams in team
interactions to better understand the relationship between task-oriented communication and
emergent leadership from a gender perspective. We found that, while men and women do not
differ in the objective amount of agentic and communal task-oriented statements, men were
more likely to emerge as leaders when engaging in any type of task-oriented statements (i.e.
agentic and communal). Relations-oriented statements did not predict emergent leadership
for either men or women.

Theoretical implications
First, we find no overall difference in emergent leadership between male and female team
members, which is in line with a slowly decreasing gender gap in emergent leadership (see
Badura et al., 2018). However, we do find that men are more likely to emerge as leaders when
JMP
36,1

64

Figure 4.
Emergent leadership
and communal
relations-oriented
behaviors exhibited by
men and women

they engage in agentic task-oriented behaviors. Contrary to our expectation, men also benefit
from communal task-oriented behaviors. This contradicts previous findings showing that
female team members over-emerge as leaders when they exhibit agentic task-oriented
behaviors, as reported by other team members (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015). Theoretically,
this inconsistency points to an important difference between defining concepts in terms of
actor effects (i.e. differences in actual behaviors) or in terms of observer effects (i.e. differences
in the perceptions of the same behaviors). Empirically, when studying gender in the context
of leadership, researchers should consider the value of coding verbal behaviors (e.g.
frequency of agentic task-oriented behaviors by member A) in addition to relying on survey-
rated perceptions of these behaviors (e.g. self- and/or other-ratings). This is because the
amount of objectively coded and perceived behaviors may diverge and thus provide
important insights into perceptual biases. In other words, participants who indicate their
perceptions of other team members’ behavior or the frequency of such behaviors are often
influenced by biases that may result from individual stereotypes (Campbell, 1967), such as
associating men (more than women) with leadership roles (Braun et al., 2017) and with agentic
behaviors (Eagly et al., 2000). Furthermore, similar to the hindsight bias phenomenon
(Fischhoff, 2007), the reported behaviors in follow-up surveys are often influenced by the
outcome (i.e. in this study, emergent leadership ratings). That is, if a team member is rated
high on emergent leadership, then the participant might tend to also rate this person high on
any behavior that could potentially explain the high emergent leadership value.
Second, we provide a conceptually more fine-grained approach to studying leadership
behaviors by creating a coding scheme that differentiates two broad classes or types of
communication (task- and relations-oriented behaviors) based on how they are expressed
(agentic or communal). Based on our conceptual differentiation, future research may want to
acknowledge that task-oriented behaviors cannot be equated with agentic behaviors, and
that relations-oriented behaviors are not necessarily equal to positive behaviors aimed at
supporting and developing others (i.e. communal behaviors). While we only found an
advantage for men exhibiting these behaviors, theorizing in different settings using our 2 3 2
differentiation of task- and relations-oriented behaviors expressed in an agentic or communal
way may offer a more nuanced view on when women can profit from certain types of
communication when it comes to the ascription of leadership.
Third, relations-oriented statements did not predict emergent leadership for either
men or women. The results of our analysis support the notion that task-oriented
behaviors, compared to relations-oriented behaviors, play a more important role in Emergent
predicting leadership (Lanaj and Hollenbeck, 2015; Slater, 1955). Based on recent research leadership,
by Gerpott et al. (2019), relations-oriented behaviors predicted emergent leadership when
measured toward the end of the project. The fact that the present study’s data collection
communication
took place at the project’s midpoint could therefore potentially explain why we found and gender
significant results of task-oriented but not relations-oriented behaviors when predicting
emergent leadership.
65
Practical implications
Our findings suggest that men and women do not differ in their agentic and communal task-
and relations-oriented verbal behaviors, thus challenging the common belief that men and
women have different communication styles. To support an increase of women in leadership
positions, organizations may thus want to change the content of their training programs to
focus less on gender differences in leadership behavior and instead place greater emphasis on
similarities (e.g. Enterprise Media, 2013), such as the importance of both task and relations
oriented behaviors and the role they place for both men and women in leader emergence. This
implication is in line with recent evidence showing that downplaying gender differences
rather than emphasizing them positively impacts women’s confidence and behaviors at work
(Martin and Phillips, 2017). For example, organizational development programs could profit
from spending less time on teaching women how to behave differently (Peck, 2019), and
instead focus on male and female participants’ awareness on how they evaluate male and
female leaders differently. To ensure that employees make unbiased evaluations of female
leaders, organizations can provide unconscious bias identification trainings (Gino, 2015),
which would help increase employees’ self-awareness of their perceptions of women in
leadership roles.
Furthermore, this study uses an innovative approach of analyzing actual verbal behavior
instead of utilizing other-reports based on perceptions of behaviors. The analysis of verbal
behaviors can provide a broad range of opportunities to explore in practice (Wenzel and Van
Quaquebeke, 2018). Due to recent technological advancements, such data can now be
collected and analyzed in a large volume, thus allowing for a rich database to guide corporate
decision making (Chaffin et al., 2017). Furthermore, compared to relying exclusively on data
based on self-reports, analyzing verbal behavior between employees allows practitioners to
reduce the influence of individual biases in their decision-making. For example, data used to
determine leadership decisions such as promotions and the design of leadership courses
could be enriched by gathering data from multiple sources, such as a 360 assessment and
video-based observations of the behavior of interest in a high-stakes situation such as a
negotiation or conflict scenario. Furthermore, leadership development courses could provide
deeper insights for participants when relying on different data sources. For instance,
participants could be asked to link a performance assessment with verbal behavior data from
a hypothetical male versus female leader to understand how the leader’s behaviors are
perceived differently across participants depending on the leader’s gender. This would
represent a powerful demonstration of gender biases. To conclude, the creation of an
application to systematically collect data and analyze verbal behaviors could help HR
functions such as HR analytics, talent management and leadership development to utilize
data for deriving evidence-based recommendations (Klonek et al., 2018).

Limitations and future directions


As with every study, this research has some limitations that can inspire future research
designs. First, our coding scheme provided insights into men’s higher likelihood (compared to
women) of emerging as leaders when displaying task-oriented behaviors. The coding scheme
JMP used in this study generated copious data on the frequency of agentic and communal task-
36,1 and relations-oriented verbal behaviors predicting emergent leadership from a gender
perspective, but it cannot capture dynamic interaction behavior (e.g. sequences of behaviors).
It is possible that understanding how others react to a team member’s specific verbal
behavior may lead to a deeper understanding of why women are still at a disadvantage in
their emergent leadership ratings. For example, research has demonstrated that a woman’s
task-oriented behaviors is more often ignored or challenged and therefore cannot truly trigger
66 social influence (Carli, 2001). To explore this possibility, future studies on leadership in
workplace settings could analyze the reaction of interaction partners by using a relational
coding scheme (Rogers and Escudero, 2004). A relational coding scheme could provide unique
insights into the way leadership relationships are constructed (Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien, 2012).
It would allow to not only assess the frequency of agentic and communal behaviors, as done
in this study, but also provide insights into how these behaviors trigger supportive and non-
supportive statements from other team members. Relatedly, future research may want to dive
deeper into the temporal dynamics that predict emergent leadership over time. For example,
future research could use sequence analysis (Lehmann-Willenbrock and Allen, 2018) to
understand which behaviors are more likely to follow a task-oriented agentic or communal
statement depending on whether it is exhibited by a man or woman.
Second, we deemed a student sample appropriate for theory-building (Mook, 1983), that is,
to test the new theory-based coding scheme that we developed here and that differentiates
task- and relations-oriented behavior expressed in an agentic versus communal way.
A student sample can be representative of employees as long as the sample’s characteristics
do not influence the phenomenon of interest (emergent leadership; Highhouse and Gillespie,
2009). We therefore believe that a sample involving participants with more work experience
than a student sample would not influence this study’s results. Nevertheless, we acknowledge
that, to understand verbal behaviors and emergent leadership, a student sample can have
only a limited value in generalizing such results to other organizational settings. Future
research could address this limitation by collecting data in an organizational context with
self-managed project teams. In addition to replicating our findings, research in these settings
may profit particularly from current technological innovations, such as wearable sensors
(Chaffin et al., 2017) to objectively capture behavior (instead of relying on survey reports).
These sensors can collect data in high quantity and quality with minimal disruption to the
participant’s work routine (Cook and Meyer, 2017). For example, a recent study by Meyer et al.
(2016) used motion sensors to measure leaders’ behavioral mimicry of their followers.
Building on this application, scholars could, for example, investigate whether male and
female team members’ agentic and communal task-oriented and relations-oriented behaviors
are associated with different levels of behavioral mimicry in their peers. Higher levels of
mimicry are a useful indicator of higher ascriptions of leadership, thus allowing for more
indirect measures of social support.
Finally, in the current study, we investigate the relation between emergent leadership and
actual verbal behaviors. However, we did not assess potential mediators or moderators. For
example, other team members’ perceived frequency of displayed behaviors could be relevant.
Future studies could ask participants to rate one another’s agentic and communal task- and
relations-oriented behaviors, and this data could then be used to examine the relationship
between others’ perceptions and actual behaviors as they both relate to leadership emergence.
Furthermore, an analysis of moderators would be beneficial to identify potential
interventions that mitigate biases against women who exhibit task-oriented behaviors. For
example, in a workplace context, scholars could investigate how instructions provided to
team members influence the degree to which team members perceive leader behaviors.
According to attribution theory (Fiske and Taylor, 1991), individuals assign causes to others’
behaviors based on dispositional (internal characteristics of the individual) or situational
factors (events outside a person’s control). These attributions can impact how others are Emergent
perceived. For instance, if a line manager creates a meeting situation in which employees are leadership,
expected to exhibit task behaviors, employees are likely to attribute their colleagues’ task
behaviors to situational factors rather than to dispositional attributes. Accordingly, women
communication
might be protected against the negative evaluations of engaging in this type of and gender
communication and should be rewarded similarly to their male counterparts for displaying
task-oriented behaviors.
67
Conclusion
Increasing gender diversity in leadership positions remains a primary topic for organizations
(Huang et al., 2019). So far, research and practice alike has often relied on others’ survey-based
perceptions of agentic and communal behavior as a foundation to develop interventions on
how to prevent a positive assessment bias toward men that at the same time should help to
overcome obstacles for women who aim to reach leadership positions. We argue here that this
approach is problematic because perceptions of behaviors may have already been influenced
by the assessor’s biases. As such, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the concrete
behaviors that men and women should show when trying to increase their chances of being
ascribed leadership in initially leaderless teams. Our research contributes a more nuanced
conceptual differentiation of agentic and communal behaviors that combines them with their
task- versus relations-oriented content, and empirically links these behaviors to emergent
leadership using an interaction coding approach. First, we find no overall difference in
emergent leadership ratings between male and female team members. Second, we find that
men and women do not differ in their display of the coded behaviors, but do differ in the
amount of ascribed informal leadership responsibilities for their communication acts.
Evidently, a major challenge will be to find out how organizations can tackle the tendency of
people to overly positively evaluate male team member’s verbal contributions in terms of
leadership abilities. We hope that our study inspires scholars to combine both survey and
interaction coding measures in future research to come to a richer understanding about how
men and women are ascribed leadership for the verbal behaviors they show in team
interactions.

Note
1. Notably every task-oriented statement also has a relations-oriented message and vice versa
(Watzlawick et al., 1967). However, we focus on behavior’s primary function as task- or relations-
oriented.

References
Abele, A.E. and Bruckm€ uller, S. (2013), “The big two of agency and communion in language and
communication”, in Forgas, J. and Laszlo, J. (Eds), Social Cognition and Communication,
Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp. 173-184.
Abele, A.E. and Wojciszke, B. (2007), “Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus
others”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5, pp. 751-763.
Abele, A.E. and Wojciszke, B. (2014), “Communal and agentic content in social cognition: a dual
perspective model”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 195-255.
Anderson, R.C. and Klofstad, C.A. (2012), “Preference for leaders with masculine voices holds in the
case of feminine leadership roles”, PLoS One, Vol. 7 No. 12, p. e51216.
Badura, K.L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D.A., Yan, T.T. and Jeon, G. (2018), “Gender and leadership
emergence: a meta-analysis and explanatory model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3,
pp. 335-367.
JMP Bakan, D. (1966), The Duality of Human Existence. An Essay on Psychology and Religion, Rand
Mcnally, Chicago.
36,1
Balderson, S.J. and Broderick, A.J. (1996), “Behaviour in teams: exploring occupational and gender
differences”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 33-42.
Bales, R.E. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis. A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, MA.
68 Bales, R.F. and Slater, P.E. (1955), “Role differentiation in small decision-making groups”, in Parsons,
T. and Bales, R.F. (Eds), Family, Socialisation, and Interaction Processes, Free Press, New York,
NY, pp. 259-306.
Barbuto, J.E. and Gifford, G.T. (2010), “Examining gender differences of servant leadership: an
analysis of the agentic and communal properties of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire.”,
Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 4-22.
Bass, B.M. (1954), “The leaderless group discussion”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51, pp. 465-492.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass and Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bourantas, D. and Papalexandris, N. (1990), “Sex differences in leadership: leadership styles and
subordinate satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 7-10.
Braun, S., Stegmann, S., Hernandez Bark, A.S., Junker, N.M. and van Dick, R. (2017), “Think
manager—think male, think follower—think female: gender bias in implicit followership
theories”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 377-388.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, C.F., Salas, E. and Halpin, S.M. (2006), “What type of
leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 288-307.
Campbell, D.T. (1967), “Stereotypes and the perception of group differences”, American Psychologist,
Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 817-829.
Carli, L.L. (2001), “Gender and social influence”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 725-741.
Chaffin, D., Heidl, R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Howe, M., Yu, A., Voorhees, C. and Calantone, R. (2017), “The
promise and perils of wearable sensors in organizational research”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 3-31.
Cialdini, R.B. and Trost, M.R. (1998), “Social influence: social norms, conformity and compliance”, in
Gilbert, D.T., Fiske, S.T. and Lindzey, G. (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology, McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY, pp. 151-192.
Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Cook, A.S. and Meyer, B. (2017), “Assessing leadership behavior with observational and sensor-based
methods: a brief overview”, in Schyns, B., Neves, P. and Hall, R. (Eds), Handbook of Methods in
Leadership Research, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 73-102.
Costa, P.L., Passos, A.M. and Bakker, A.B. (2014), “Team work engagement: a model of emergence”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 414-436.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Wilmuth, C.A. and Carney, D.R. (2012), The Benefit of Power Posing before a High-
Stakes Social Evaluation, Working Paper, No. 13-027, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
DeRue, D.S. and Ashford, S.J. (2010), “Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of
leadership identity construction in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35
No. 4, pp. 627-647.
Derue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N.E.D. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011), “Trait and behavioral
theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 7-52.
Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2003), “The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence”, Emergent
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 807-834.
leadership,
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2012), “Women and the labyrinth of leadership”, in Contemporary Issues in
Leadership, pp. 147-162.
communication
Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001), “The leadership styles of women and men”, Journal
and gender
of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 781-797.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”, Psychological 69
Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-256.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.
Eagly, A.H. and Wood, W. (1991), “Explaining sex differences in social behavior: a meta-analytic
perspective”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 306-315.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992), “Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a
metanalysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. and Diekman, A.B. (2000), “Social role theory of sex differences and
similarities: a current appraisal”, in Eckes, T. and Trautner, H.M. (Eds), The Developmental
Social Psychology of Gender, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 123-174.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. and Van Engen, M.L. (2003), “Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4, pp. 569-591.
Enterprise Media (2013), “Invisible rules”, available at: https://www.enterprisemedia.com/product/
00677/invisible-rules—revised-edition.
Fairhurst, G.T. and Connaughton, S.L. (2014), “Leadership: a communicative perspective”, Leadership,
Vol. 10, pp. 7-35.
Fairhurst, G.T. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2012), “Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): examining
leadership as a relational process”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1043-1062.
Fischhoff, B. (2007), “An early history of hindsight research”, Social Cognition, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 10-13.
Fiske, S.T. and Taylor, S.E. (1991), Social Cognition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Forsyth, D.R., Heiney, M.M. and Wright, S.S. (1997), “Biases in appraisals of women leaders”, Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 98-103.
Foschi, M. (2000), “Double standards for competence: theory and research”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 26, pp. 21-42.
Garrett, D., Meyers, R. and West, L. (1997), “Sex differences and consumer complaints: do men and
women communicate differently when they complain to customer service representatives?”,
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 10,
pp. 116-130.
Gerpott, F.H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Silvis, J.D. and Van Vugt, M. (2018), “In the eye of the
beholder? An eye-tracking experiment on emergent leadership in team interactions”, The
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 523-532.
Gerpott, F.H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Voelpel, S.C. and Van Vugt, M. (2019), “It’s not just what is
said but also when it’s said: a temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in
self-managed teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 717-738.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), “Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group
development”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-41.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1989), “Marking time: predictable transitions in task groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 274-309.
Gino, F. (2015), What Facebook’s Anti-bias Training Program Gets Right, Harvard Business School
Publishing, 24 August, Boston, MA.
JMP Graziano, W.G., Habashi, M.M., Sheese, B.E. and Tobin, R.M. (2007), “Agreeableness, empathy, and
helping: a person_situation perspective”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 93,
36,1 pp. 583-599.
Hall, J.A. and Friedman, G.B. (1999), “Status, gender, and nonverbal behavior: a study of structured
interactions between employees of a company”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 1082-1091.
Heilman, M.E. (2001), “Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent
70 up the organizational ladder”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 657-674.
Heilman, M.E. (2012), “Gender stereotypes and workplace bias”, Research in Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 32, pp. 113-135.
Heilman, M.E. and Chen, J.J. (2005), “Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s and
women’s altruistic citizenship behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,
pp. 431-441.
Hemphill, J.K. and Coons, A.E. (1957), Development of the Leader Behavior Description and
Measurement, Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, pp. 1-18.
Hentschel, T., Braun, S., Peus, C. and Frey, D. (2018), “The communality-bonus effect for male
transformational leaders–leadership style, gender, and promotability”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 112-125.
Highhouse, S. and Gillespie, J.Z. (2009), “Do samples really matter that much”, in Statistical and
Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Doctrine, Verity and Fable in the Organizational and
Social Sciences, pp. 247-265.
Hogan, R. (1983), “A socioanalytic theory of personality”, in Page, M.M. (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, pp. 329-351.
Hogue, M. (2016), “Gender bias in communal leadership: examining servant leadership”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 837-849.
Huang, J., Krivkovich, A., Starikova, I., Yee, L. and Zanoschi, D. (2019), “Women in the workplace
2019”, available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/gender-equality/women-in-the-
workplace-2019.
Hyde, J.S. (2005), “The gender similarities hypothesis”, American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 6,
pp. 581-592.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M. and Jundt, D. (2005), “Teams in organizations: from input-
process-output models to IMOI models”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 517-543.
Johnson, S.K., Murphy, S.E., Zewdie, S. and Reichard, R.J. (2008), “The strong, sensitive type: effects of
gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. and Ilies, R. (2004), “The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and
initiating structure in leadership research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 1,
pp. 36-51.
Keck, S. (2019), “Gender, leadership, and the display of empathic anger”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 953-977.
Kidder, D.L. (2002), “The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship
behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 629-648.
Klonek, F., Hay, G. and Parker, S. (2018), “The big data of social dynamics at work: a technology-
based application”, in Academy of Management Global Proceedings, p. 185.
Klonek, F.E., Meinecke, A.L., Hay, G. and Parker, S.K. (2020), “Capturing team dynamics in the wild:
the communication analysis tool”, Small Group Research, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 303-341.
Lanaj, K. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (2015), “Leadership over-emergence in self-managing teams: the role of
gender and countervailing biases”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5,
pp. 1476-1494.
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Allen, J.A. (2018), “Modeling temporal interaction dynamics in Emergent
organizational settings”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 325-344.
leadership,
Loughlin, C., Arnold, K. and Bell Crawford, J. (2011), “Lost opportunity: is transformational leadership
accurately recognized and rewarded in all managers?”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
communication
International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 43-64. and gender
Madera, J.M., Hebl, M.R. and Martin, R.C. (2009), “Gender and letters of recommendation for academia:
agentic and communal differences”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1591-1599.
71
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and
motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 20, pp. 568-579.
Martin, A.E. and Phillips, K.W. (2017), “What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and
do: implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 142, pp. 28-44.
McAdams, D.P. (1988), Power, Intimacy, and the Life Story: Personological Inquiries into Identity,
Guilford Press, New York.
Mehl, M.R., Vazire, S., Ramırez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R.B. and Pennebaker, J.W. (2007), “Are women
really more talkative than men?”, Science, Vol. 317 No. 5834, p. 82.
Meyer, B., Burtscher, M.J., Jonas, K., Feese, S., Arnrich, B., Tr€oster, G. and Schermuly, S.S. (2016),
“What good leaders actually do: micro-level leadership behaviour, leader evaluations, and team
decision quality”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 773-789.
Mook, D.G. (1983), “In defense of external invalidity”, American Psychologist, Vol. 38 No. 4,
pp. 379-387.
Neubert, M.J. and Taggar, S. (2004), “Pathways to informal leadership: the moderating role of gender
on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal
leadership emergence”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 175-194.
Oakley, J.G. (2000), “Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the
scarcity of female CEOs”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 321-334.
Peck, E. (2019), Women at Ernst and Young Instructed on How to Dress, Act Nicely Around Men,
Business, 21 October, available at: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/women-ernst-young-how-to-
dress-act-around-men_n_5da721eee4b002e33e78606a?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6L
y93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sigAQAAAH1nbD6hjDKTNFCO=pdcb31HAsMO
gtCQtpysJ8dkQreEA2pdfqTYEbrLY3Js-_GzUaGVPxIZR1MsqZuWlou6fB2Xj0QyteGSB-
HYVZrFin91SZmiDnjkOxkHTRPQWIQSPGmUXMCyqOCY2N1sg-U_dwMRitq98H82CMW9v
fH6SgflV.
Pescosolido, A.T. (2002), “Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 583-599.
Prentice, D.A. and Carranza, E. (2004), “Sustaining cultural beliefs in the face of their violation: the
case of gender stereotypes”, in Schaller, M. and Crandall, C.S. (Eds), The Psychological
Foundations of Culture, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 259-280.
Riggio, R.E. and Reichard, R.J. (2008), “The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership:
an emotional and social skill approach”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 169-185.
Rogers, L.E. and Escudero, V. (2004), Relational Communication: An Interactional Perspective to the
Study of Process and Form, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Rosette, A.S. and Tost, L.P. (2010), “Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptions
confer advantage to top women leaders”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 2,
pp. 221-235.
Rudman, L.A. and Glick, P. (1999), “Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: the
hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle-managers”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 1004-1010.
JMP Rudman, L. and Glick, P. (2001), “Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 743-762.
36,1
Rudman, L.A., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Glick, P. and Phelan, J.E. (2012), “Status incongruity and backlash
effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 165-179.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T.L., Converse, S.A. and Tannenbaum, S.I. (1992), “Toward an understanding of
team performance and training”, in Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E. (Eds), Teams: Their Training
72 and Performance, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ, pp. 3-29.
Schaumberg, R.L. and Flynn, F.J. (2017), “Self-reliance: a gender perspective on its relationship to
communality and leadership evaluations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 5,
pp. 1859-1881.
Schein, V.E. (1975), “Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 340-344.
Slater, P.E. (1955), “Role differentiation in small groups”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 300-310.
Stogdill, R.M. (1974), Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research, The Free Press,
New York.
Swaab, R.I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E.M., Ronay, R. and Galinsky, A.D. (2014), “The too-much-talent
effect: team interdependence determines when more talent is too much versus not enough”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 25, pp. 1581-1591.
Taggar, S., Hackew, R. and Saha, S. (1999), “Leadership emergence in autonomous work teams:
antecedents and outcomes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 899-926.
Tannen, D. (1990), You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, William Morrow,
New York, NY.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965), “Developmental sequence in small groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 384-399.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006), “Relational leadership theory: exploring the social processes of leadership and
organizing”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 654-676.
Van Quaquebeke, N. and Felps, W. (2018), “Respectful inquiry: a motivational account of leading
through asking questions and listening”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 43, pp. 5-27.
Vinkenburg, C.J., Van Engen, M.L., Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2011), “An exploration
of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: is transformational leadership a route to
women’s promotion?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. and Jackson, D.D. (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study
of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, Norton & Company, New York.
Wenzel, R. and Van Quaquebeke, N. (2018), “The double-edged sword of big data in organizational
and management research: a review of opportunities and risks”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 548-591.
Wiggins, J.S. (1979), “A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: the interpersonal domain”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 395-412.
Wiggins, J.S. (1991), “Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and
measurement of interpersonal behavior.”, in Cicchetti, D. and Grove, W.M. (Eds), Thinking Clearly
about Psychology: Essays in Honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1. Matters of Public Interest, Vol. 2.
Personality and Psychopathology, University of Minnesota Press., Minneapolis, MN, pp. 89-113.
Williams, M.J. and Tiedens, L.Z. (2016), “The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of
penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 142
No. 2, pp. 165-197.
Wojciszke, B. (2005), “Morality and competence in person-and self-perception”, European Review of
Social Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 155-188.
Wood, W. and Eagly, A.H. (2002), “A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Emergent
implications for the origins of sex differences”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 699-727.
leadership,
Wood, W. and Eagly, A.H. (2012) “Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in
behavior”, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, Burlington, VT,
communication
pp. 55-123. and gender
Ybarra, O., Chan, E., Park, H., Burnstein, E., Monin, B. and Stanik, C. (2008), “Life’s recurring
challenges and the fundamental dimensions: an integration and its implications for cultural
differences and similarities”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 38, pp. 1083-1092. 73
Yukl, G. (2011), “Contingency theories of effective leadership”, The SAGE Handbook of Leadership,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 286-298.
Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002), “A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior:
integrating a half century of behavior research”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 15-32.
JMP
Appendix
36,1

Speaker Transcript Code


74
Example 1
C Okay, let’s divide responsibilities and stuff. We will. . . Directive plan
A No, wait Interruption
A Let’s finish this. So, first things first, we say what is our solution. Right? Directive plan
B Yes. The solution Support and
empower
A First is our solution Other
B So we should explain the theoretical aspect behind augmented reality Propose plan
A Yeah Encourage
participation
B Why is it so much better than anything else? Other
A Yeah Encourage
participation
B And then we need to go to studies, find things about augmented reality and Propose plan
things about what is the impact on your brain of seeing information while
you are doing it. How is this going to improve your knowledge transfer?
Improvements. Whatever
A Well, it’s kind of a separate point, but they are very related to each other Other
B Yeah Encourage
participation
Example 2
B And then we can show the 360 min versus our solution, which takes three Propose idea –
minutes polite
A Uhum Encourage
participation
B And we can do something like a video, and ask permission if we can record Propose idea –
something, so we go to the plan and polite
A Yeah Encourage
participation
B And simulate we are one of the workers and have to do something Propose idea –
Table A1. polite
Sample transcripts Note(s): We assigned a letter to each participant (A, B or C ). The coders did not transcribe the verbal content
using interaction but coded the meeting videos directly using the software Communication Analysis Tool (CAT; Klonek et al., in
coding press). The provided transcripts are for illustrative purposes only

Corresponding author
Sofia Schlamp can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

You might also like