From the article" Chapter 7 Being both leaders and followers: Advancing a model of leader and follower role switching " by Thomas sy and Tara McCoy,

Read the article provided (Sy & McCoy, 2014). The authors describe a system for leader and follower exchange. In working the project for this class, how do you envision yourself sometimes leading others and sometimes following others throughout the course period? Do you think your team will identify leaders and followers on a more formal or more informal basis? In what way could project roles be formally established in your project? What kind of role structure would you recommend?

Please describe in detail

120 fif icha Popped 122 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy {fodel of Leader and Follower Switching Jyy Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. t2005). "What's your story?" A life-stories approach to authentic Chapter 7 supervisor or employees who have more seniority than me, I think of myself as a follower. This happens several times each time I work." The above experience both roles. This duality and Dynamism may explain when employees may enact lea- leadership development. The I roderclip Quarterly, 15, 395-41 7. Shamir . B.. House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1 993). The motivational effects of charismatic describes how employees may enact both leader and follower roles and the influence der aftd follower roles. Therefore, investigating LFS may help us Furthe undetste'd leadership: A self-concept based iheory. Orgiui isoriora/ Science, 4, 577-593. Being Both Leaders and Followers: Advancing a of different contextual cues (e.g., levels of hierarchy) in shaping the (leader and why and when individuals follow or lead. As such, although the primary aim of this Strauss, A. (1959). Mirrors ourt masks: The set roh for an infeniir)'. Glencoe. IL: free Press. follower) roles that individuals enact. The example illustrates the phenomenon of book is FollOSVeFShip, we take a holistic an poach TO FOCUS On hath leadersh in and Todorov, A, Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A, A Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence Leader-Follower Switching (LFS), which we define as the intrapersonal process of followership given they are highly interdependent ithffl the context of LFS. from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 268(5728), 1623- 1626. Model of Leaderand Follower Role Switching Iversky. A., i Kahnenian, D. (1 973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and dynamically switching between leader and follower roles. This process may operate pruhability. Cognii*c Psychology'. .f, 207-232. Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy independent of Formall $ designated toles (e.g., mar ignments and titles). an Vugt, M, Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution, For example, middle managers (ie., employees with a formal title designated by the 7.2. LFS 1th10 Eytant Leadership Literature American Ps 'chologict. 61(3), 182- 196. organization) may enact 60/fi a follower role when discussing strategic plans with Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organisations. Thousand Oaks. CA: SAGE the CEO, and a leader role when interacting with their subordinates to implement Although LFS has not been directly ".activated it is :....1:--4-d :.. .* 1--J-_.L.:. Publications. strategic plans. Similarly, as illustrated in the above exam e example, employees with no literature (e.g.. Carson, Tesluk, k, & Marjorie, 2007: DeRue & Ashford. 2010: Westla ke. M. (Ed.). (2000). deciders of transition London: Macmillan. Abstract formal management designation may enact both leader and follower roles. Although implicated in the literature (e.g., Pearce & Conger, 2002), LFS has not Pearce & Conget, 2002: Uh)-Bien, 200fi; Yamroaring, Salas Serhan Shirters WE Fopose a novel construct on Leader-Follower Switching (LFS(. Je delineate the key theoretical tenets of I.FS First T.FS ... .i--.. ... ..- --- been directly investigated perhaps because leadership and followership are typically established in tile social psychological literature. which lends support for the dual mise that indiviauaix ossess schemas for leader and follower roles (ie., implicit portrayed as static roles. Accordingly, we bring this prevalent and core assumption example. individuals may possess multi theories of leadership and followership) and role switching involve the artive. to the foreground for direct investigation. In this chapter, we first define LFS and pie sell-schemes (Tajfel, 2010).Moreover, individuals may ctivate different self- uon or mese schemas. Second LFS may be a function of individual differences articulate its key theoretical tenets. Second, we describe the four styles of LFS (ie., he., me four LMS styles: (i.e.. Dynamism. Leader-Stasis. Call.we Cansis and Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation) that reflect individual schemas as a function of context, such as describing the self in rerms of conditions CapSulatin) and context (e.g., contextual cues trigger leader and hollower differences in preference for switching between leader and follower roles. Finally, I km . .. when" as opposed to traits a1 "I am" (Mendoza-Denton. AvduL. Mischal schemas). Third, LFS encompasses behavioral ertactmeo c (i.e.. individuals we propose a research agenda for investigating LFS focusing on its measurement, cao trigger corresponding brhavioff partm martment as predicted by theor followers) behaviorally enact the leader or follow r roles that are mentally activated) that its antecedents (e.g., leader and follower experiences, implicit theories of leadership Behavior Link (as described below) (Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin. 2005: Ches & is explained by the Perception-Behavior Link. Fourth. LFS processes can and followership, organizational hierarchy. and culture), and its outcomes (e.g., job Bargh, ly9/; Dykster huis & van Knippenberg, 1998)." operate in controlled (conscious) of automatic (prec rtyj us) fashion. He ving satisfaction, relationship quality, and I effectiveness). Given we ivyel nature of our construct, we review ralavant literation such as the explicated the theoretical towed, tioff Of LFS, we propose an agenda For Future coMectivistic eadersHip literature, to develop further Our concantion of T.FS A com- tonality among the multiple theories that Notll Within the collectivistic leadership respafCh, focusing on assessment, antecedents (e.g.. leader and follower experi- ences, implicit theories of leadership and followership, organizational hierar- 7.1. LFS: Integrating the Domains of Leadership and Followership CBiggOLy is that leadership is distributed a and may reside in multiple indd VIduals at different times. Fundamentally, these find jviduals rise ana recede as leaders within Chr, and Gulture), and outcomes (..- job Satisfaction. relationship quality. and Traditional theories of leadership focus primarily on leaders and their behaviors. their groups temporally based on the context. Within the collectivistic leadership body of work, Shared Leadership (Paarea & ('nnear 700) . Key words: Leadership; followership; roles; switching; styles These are considered leader-centric theories (Hollander, 1992a. 1992b). Similarly, follower-centric theories (Meindl. 1995) focus on followers in order to understand because it most directly addresses the organizational beqav jor Dynamics that are leaders and leadership, such as the effects of followers' self-concepts on charismatic nherfut ened of Shared A adership is that leadership is shaked amongst group Imagine yourself at work talking with your supervisor. How do you see your role in leadership (Howell & Shamir, 2005) and the effects of followers' personality on member's, and tite leader Note 14 assumed momentarily by the indiy dual most suited this Situation. as a follower? Now, imagine that you are mlking with an em plovee transformational leadership (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). Whereas most research tends to ww mu use lasn, as others assume follower roles. A main assumption is that multi- & leader-centric or follower-centric, we advance the literature in the current ple individuals in the group may enact the cold of leader at different times. you recently hired. How do you see your role in this situation. as a leader? A collea- research by taking an integrative approach because leadership and followership are Similarly, the same individ Uets may enact follower roles when they are not in the que recently described a similar common occult qce at work; she said, "During the inherently interdependent in LFS. Certain roles do not exist without the presence of role of leader. ThUS, this press is Dynamic such that individuals may switch same shift, when I am training newly hired employees. I take on the role of a leader the other (Brown, 1965); there would be no leaders or leadership without followers, between leader arid follower roles overtime. Due to the dual ROI s d splayed in mul- although I am not officially In a managazial role. Then, when I interact with my and vice versa. Essentially, both roles dynamically influence each other (Sy, 2010) tiQIP individuals, Shared Leadership clearly demonstrates the duality of leader and By integrating the duality of leadership and followership, LFS may enhance our understanding of both domains. follower roles. It highlights that one's role is not solely defined by one's formal LFS emphasizes the dual roles of employees. That is, some employees can be designation within an organization and one may enact both rolzz as leaders and Copyright ( 2014 by En followers (Denis, Langley, a s. at, 2017). In rights of reproduction in any form reserved both leaders and followers. Moreover, LFS highlights the Dynamism of this duality, their shared assumptions, it is important to make a distinction between ISBN: 978-1-78350-515-9 such that the roles are permeable and individuals may dynamically shift between LFS and Shared Leadership. LFS is Bora-persona lin forus highlighting the ness-124 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy Model of Leader and Follower Switching 125 126 Thinmos Sq and Tara McCo y Model of Leader and Follower Switching 127 of Dy numic switching between lender and follower roles within an individual, involves the following key tenets. First. LFS is predicated on the premise t lia are more likely to behave as leaders (or followers) when their self-schemas as leaders motivated and allowed to enact followership t jtt Ine ways in which maiviquals whereas Shared Leridership is firter-personal in focus, highlighting the distribution individuals must possess schemas fol leader and follower roles (i.e.. implicit theories for followers) are activated. address these central issues may determine their andareament for the T FS styles of leadership responsibilities across multiple individuals (Pearce & Conger , 2002). of leadership and folio wershi P) b 180QfikL by Martin, Tram-Quon, & To pada s, Fourth, the LFS process can be controlled (conscious) or automatic (precon- and corresponding nhavioral enactment of leadership and followership roles. Morcover, unlike Shared Leadership, LFS is not restricted to teams; the roleswitch avid wweN w muses. yyl Sy, 201 (j] m order for role switching to occur. These acions). Extrapolationg from past research on controlled and automatic processes, Negotiating these central orientations results in fatty distinct styles fees Figure 7 i) ing process resides in the individual. We posit that LES is a contextually-sensitive schemas are cteveloped . from prior experiences (Keller, 2000). For switching to research has shown that processes similar to LFS may be consciously enacted at Dynamism, Leader.Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation. These styles parallel intrapersonal process such that stimuli in the environment serve as cues to activate occur. individuals must have internalized the cognitive, emotional, and belia vioral first (e.g., when individuals are learning to lead) and subsequently, become more the findings of previous empirical I esearch on the influence of activated sell-schamax leader or follower roles. As our opening exam ple illustrates, the mere presence of an associations relevant to those schen ugh implicit theories of automatic as individuals become more proficient, and less effortful processing is in shaping role enactment (Benet-Martinez, , press: Benet-IVfartinez > ithout the necessity research that can address questions beyontl the limitations of field survey the discretionary power to lead (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Similarly, followers Pearce & Conger. 2till2: Yammarino ct at, 2012), of super vision or to supers'ise others ("IBM AbardS Highest Technical Honor,' 2013). possessing characteristics that match lay people's conception of a good follower The mcond domain of assessment concerns the fotlr LFS styles. Whereas the first (IFTs) are more likely to receive favoriible treatment (Wbiteley, Sy. & Johnson. 7.d.2. Legacy-Stasis Sly fe domain assesses the degree to which individuals empa ge in LFS. the second domain 2012). ILTs and IFTs represent subjective realities and perceptions, which are 7.5. Research Agenda assesses their stylistic orientation. Thus, individuals may role switch often (fre powerful determinants of behaviors even in the presence of objective facts a Individuals with the Leader-Stasis stilc are high on leader and low- on follower quency) and yet vary in their stasis point such that an individual with a Leader-Stasis evidence (Lewandowski, Obera uer, A Gignac, in press). orientations. Whereas these individuals may occasionally engage in LFS, the degree Having explicated the theoretical foundation of EFS, we propose an agenda for style yay SpCOd more time (duration) enacting the IPIldCI fOIC. ^ +888^ an indjtldual We posit that individuals' implicit theories may influence the degree to which of their switching is more static in comparison to individuals with the Dynamism in vestigatifip this novel construct " discussion is not meant to be exha ustive. with a Follower-St.isis style may spend more time enacting the follower role. Because they switch, as well as shape their LFS sty ie. Specifically, individuals may develop style. On balance, Leader-Stasis individuals tend to endict and sustain leadership Rather, we focus on 8"g that are most pressiar and Term a ne to LFS. In parti- the LFS styles are conceived along two dimension s, it may be dest to a 'oid the use of endorsements for certain implicit theories over time (Hanges ct al., 2000: Sy. 2010, roles more often than they do folloz'ership roles. Within organizational contexts, senior- cuur, we focus OH assessment , antecedents, and outcomes of LFS. hich inlude bipolar unidimensional scales. For example, a unidimensional scale item ms be 20 11) such that the endorsed theories are more easily and frequently activated. level cxecuties may possess this style given the frequency in which they are required to ToOHand environmental variables that affect LFS. "Which role (leader ve. follower) do you often perform at W tg?" and the response Consistent with the Perception-Behavior Link, the frequency or ILTs and IFTs enact leader roles. Although the leader role is the stasis point. indivi- duals u'ho choices may be I= rostfy {offoiver. rind 5 =mostly fender Unidimensional activation will correspond with the frequency of leader and follower role enact- possess the Leader-Stasis style may at times switch to a folio wer role. Por example. scales may be problemat@ because they may equate endorsement for one dimension ments, respectively. Thus. individuals who have intern':lized more ILTS relative to when interacting with the CEO, senior-level executives may take on a 7.5.1. Operationalizing and Assessing LFS (c.E.. leadership orientation) to a lack of en the other dimension IFTs are more likely to ezfiibit a Leader-Stasis style. Conversely. indie idua Is who more subordinate role. However, enacting the follower role does not reflect their (e.g.. followership orientation). have internalized more IFTs relative to IL Is are more likely to exhibit a Follower- genuine tendency, and they revert back to their leader-stateis point na lurally, An immediate first step is the development and validation of an instrument for Accordingly. a biaimensional scale, where leader and follower orientation is Stasis style. assessing LFS. dittoeptua I I zati on OF LFS prints ... .. meas ured in two separate scales, may best capture the four LFS orientations. For Another implicit theory relevant to LFS frequency and style is Leadership I ne IIISI domain concerns the general process or LFS, targeting degrees of role example, a respective scale item for the leader and go!1040' orientations could Structure Schemas. defined as individuals' preference for leadership structure Chicr- engage in LFS. Moreover, consistent with our the degree to wk ich individuals "How often do you perform the role of leader?," and " How often do you perform archical vs. shared leadership) (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). A hierarchical leadership I ndi iduals with the Follower-Sins is style are high on hollower and low on leader conceptualization. an assessment the role of follower?" and the response choices can range from -- nni o) Ten to schema views leadership as most effective when en'icted by a single leader, whereas of LFS should encompass both self-schemas 5 = vrJ o/men. LFS styles would be determined by Indiviiluals' relative scores on n shared leadership schema views leadership as most effective when shared by multi- orientations. , 4s with the Leader-Stasis style, individuals with the Followver-Stasis follower schemas) and bchav ior if enactment. emerging research yrovides some thes* two' dimensions For example. the Dynamism style would be reflected by ple group members. Accordingly, a sb adership schema, in comparison to a style may occasionally engage in LFS. although the degree of switching is more empirical evidence. We asked adult workers to Si.JL-WQoft their experience with scores one standard deviation above the mean on both dimensions. Similarly. the hierarchical leadership schema, may be associated z'ith more frequent LFS because static compared to individuals with the Dynamism style. In contrast to the Leader- LFS, Targeting the extent of switChi rig (e. ., At WOF wm:my times do von Leader-Stasis style would be reflected by scores one standard deviation above individuals who possess the shared leadership schema are more willing to shome les Stasis style, individuals with the Follower-Stasis style tend to enact and sustii in itch between follower and leader "les?"). In addition. we *Iso inquired the leader orientation dimension and one standard deviation below the follower dership responsibilities. Moreover, a shared leadership sclaetna may be associated followership roles more often than they' do leadership roles. Within organizational abo ut individua Is' behavioral enactment of these roles (i.e.. the degree to which they orientation dimension. with the Dynamism style because individuals with this so may have interna- contexts, entr y-level employees and those in the lower hicrarch y of the organization behaviorally perform these roles) (e.g,, "Depending on the situation. I .oc tio Alternatively. each of the LFS styles may be directly assessed. Such an instru- lized norms and expectations that leadership and followership responsibilities are are likely to possess this style because they may lack certain skills and experiences to take the lead while in a group and sometimes I follow."), Our p ment would include four scales with items capturing the Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, dynamically distributed among group members. In comparison, a hierarchies 1 enact leadership. Moreover. organizational policy and norms (e.g.. job descriptions indicates /2 percent ur employees reported switching between le een leader and tonof search Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation styles. For example. a respective scale item for the leadership schema may be associated with the Leader-Stasis and Follower-Stasis with explicit roles and responsibilities) may formally' constrain them to the follower roles th rec or more times per day on average while at work. In addition. 92 percent Dynamism and Leader-Stasis styles may be "I perform the role of leader and styles beca use the enactment of leadership and followership roles among members stasis point (De R ue & Ashford, 2010). Indeed, the Follower-Stasis style may & the OF emQ10)Me reported switchi as br-tween leader and follower roles on a weekly follower equally" and "I tend to perform the role of leader more often than the role are expected to he relatively more static. default stasis point for most entry-level employees (Pillai & Uhl-Bien. 2007). basis. Our preliminary evidence providos support for the LFS construct, indicating of follower." Individuals would receive a score on each scale, and their highest score the majority of individuals engage in LFS. Beyond survey assessments, LFS should be investiga led in ex peri inen tal settings. on a specific scale determines their LFS siyle. 7.5.2.2. Leader and follower experiences Previous opportunities to engage in leader and follove'er roles my sha pe LFS styles. 7.4.4. Capesfaiion experimental research can address the degree to z'hich individuals engage in LPS. For example, a lack of opportunities to enact leadership roles may ingrain a Follower- Moreover, experimental research can address questions bryond the limitations 7.5.2. yIntecedents of UPS Stasis orientation overtime. Similarly, an abundance of opportunities to enact Individuals with the Capsulation style are low on both leader and follower orienta- of surveys, such as if there are any cquencing effects for LFS. For example. how leadership roles (e.g., gifted student athletes who are regularly selected to be leaders tions. These individuals tend not to perceive themselves ;is either leaders or fol- difficult is it For individuals to enact a leader role z'licn they previously enacted a lowers, and consecquently are less likely to enact these roles. Capsulation individuals 7.5.2.1. Implicit theories regardless of the sports activities) may ingrain a Leader-Stasis orientation overtime. Lollolved rode and vice versa? It may be that once individuals enact a folo er role. Implicit theories of leadership and followership may influence the frequency of role Similarly. a lack of oppor tunitime to enact leadership and followership opportunities do not prefer to supervise others nor do they prefer to be supervised. Consequently. they are prevented horn switch ing and enacting a leader role hemuse others may may ingrain a Capsulation orientation. For example, when given the opportunity, they are the least Dynamic of the four styles in terms of engaging in LFS. In organi- continue to perceive them as a follower (DcRue & Ashford. 2s I 19). Similarly. indivi- switching, as well as LFS styles. Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) and Implicit aunts may not be able to shift their self-schemfis (as a leader or follower) in the Followership Theories (IFIs) reflect lay people's shamed schemas of leadership and Bill Gates voluntarily relinquished his leadership (CEO) role at Microsoft, and chose the zational contez ts, they are likely independent contributors who are y'alued for their technical expertise. They may be capsulized in their role as technical experts and same environmental cor followership. respectively (Epitropaki et at., 2013; Lord & Maher, 1991; $3'. 20 III). technical role of Chief Sol'tivare A rchilect fa new m . !" amental context (e.g.. stime grouts mem her composi tiny same task ) and132 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy Model of Leader and Follower Switching 133 134 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy Model of Leader and Follower Switching 135 created) perhaps because he naturally possesses a Capsulation orientation fostered Follower-Stasis styles because collectivism creates . at liarly, organizations such as Gore Industries and Whole Foods Nations in the str vice industry that require m ore contact z'ith people of dithering and followers' LFS styles are congruent). For example, followers who endorse the Dynamism style may expect Icaders to share leadership responsibilities with them. supervisory levels may require more switching than occupations in the manufacture research, focusing on assessment, antecedents. and out outcomes of LFS. Preliminary (Handel. 2007) that emphasize team-based development may foster more Dynamism Individuals who match followers' expectations (i.e.. leaders enact a Dynamism style ing industry that involve more contact with machinery and technology, Thus. ser- .esearch on LFS is underway. with evident" indicating that the majority of adult h individuals engugo and share leadership responsibilities) are th us viewed as more leader-like and well as the distribution of LY's sivies ma be arrected ov national culture. rus excus- vice jobs friay lead to less job sati.election than do manufacturing jobs to the extent workers (92%) engage in LFS. The prevalence of LFS suggests it may correspond- ple. differences in collectivism rind individualism may shape L that jobs in the service industries require more LFS that is more mentally' taxing afforded influence by followers. Conversely, followers who endorse a Leader-Stasis ingly have equally wide impact in the workplace. We hope otir discussion has been Individuals from collectivistic cultures may be more associated with Dynamism and However, the relationship between role switching and job satisfaction tray be style may not have such expectations to shire leadership responsibilities, and such sufficiently stimulating such that readers cm make the switch to focus their research attempts to share leadership may be viewed as leaders' shirking their leadership and intervention efforts on LFS.136 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy Model of Leader and dolla'er Sivit-hing 137 138 Thomas Sy and Tara Mccoy MOgul of Leader and Followror Switching 139 References Epitropaki.0 . Sy. T., Martin. R., TfBJ-@Hon, S., & Topaka:. A. (2013). ]fyplicir leadership Meindl J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social *88' and followership theories iR the WHd": Ta king stock of infojmnation-processing constructionist approach. F/ie Lenr/es/ill Qugrteri y. 6, 329-341 (2003). A "=*ial identity model of leadership effective- ness in organizations. In B. Barth, i. A, Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automotivety of social behavior: Direct effects "PPoaches to leadership and followershi i" "-Bviational settings. teodership Meindl. J. R.. Ehrlich, S. B., A Dukerich. J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Std W & R Rramer (Eds.), Research li in Orgasm-ational Beliaiour (Vol. 25. pp. 245-297). Greene ich, Cv: JQJ pt. of trait construct and stereotype actination on action. /surita/ of Personality anal Social Quarterly'. 24, 858-88 1. Administraive Science Quai-ier/J, 30, 78 - 102. endoza-Denton, R., Ayduk, O., Mimhel, W., Shoda. Y, & Testa, A. (2001). Person x situa- Venus, M.. M TO. C. Lanaj, K., & Johnson, R. (2012). Collect ivistic leadersfi ip requires a PrymofugJ. 77(2). 230. elfe, J, & Schyos, s. (2010). Followers' Personality and the perccpHon of tran:Formaionof collective identity. Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. . Days, B., & Riggi o. R. {2005). Tromformalloyal leadership, London: Lawrence Erl baum leadership. further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. Sri @ lawns a/ Mamuzemer, tion interactionist in self-encoding (I am .. when ...): Imy'vicztions for affect regulation and 432-436. Associates. Inc. 21, 393-41 social information processing. Joitritaf of persvitolity and Sociol P. Tjcfiofog), 80, 533- 544. Verkuylen, M., A Pouljasi, K. (2 "g Broii p ident ification: The mediating Benet-Ixlatiinez, V. {in press). Multiculturalism: Culttirel, personality, and social proce uses. In frank, M., & Gilovich, T. (19g8). The dark side of cell- atid social perception: Black uniforms Pearce. C. L.. & Conger, I, A. (2002). Shai-ed IraJerslip. - Py/raining the lia ivs arid whips of role or id >J 96- 112. Academy of Management, San Antonio, i'X. Man g." 'end Aerials. (f. 211 -283. BM Awards Highest Technical Honor. (2013). IBM awards highest technical honor to eight L. 1VI, Strauss, J., Shore, T. H., Tram, S.. Whiteley. P., & theda-Muromachi, DeRue, D.. i Ashford, S. J. (2010). A'ho will lead and who will follow? A sonal process of new Fellows as company celebrates 50th anniversary ot program. Retrieved froth http: , K. (201 0). Leadenhip perceptions as a function of race-oocupation fit. The case of Asian leadership identity construction in organiza in organizations, Heastern y of Manugerrelli Review , 35, online.wej.com/article PR-CO-70130403-900037 html?mod = crews. Accessed on July 9. American s. Journol of Applied P.vychology, 95ts), for-9ig. 627-647. 201.1. Tajfel, H. (Ed,). (2010). Sonial identity pied intergroup refu/ions (Vol. 7). Cambridit: Dijksterhuis, A.. & Barpli, J. A, (2001). The perception -b'ehavior expressway: Automatic Keller , T. (2000). ]ffJ@ges of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership ridge University Press, effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances iti experimeo ia/ sacial yayclioice y. theories. be LiuAis/rig Quarhurt IG(4), 589-607. The Wall Street Journal. (20 13, April 3). IBM awards highest ierfini'rof flatter to righti netr /ef- 13. 1-40. Kim-Jo. T., Benet-Martinez. V., & Ozer, D. (2010). MitDre andinterpersonal conflict resolu- low* os rocipr+ny relebry few 50th anniversary' c/ progroin. Retrieved from http: /Jonline. wsj. Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (199fi). The relation between perception and beha- tion styles: Role of acculturation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 41. 264-269. com/article PR-CO-20130403-900037.1 tml?mod=crews. Accessed on July 9.20.13. vior. or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Jourtal of Personalil varid . (ocial pecht jing y. ewaodowsky, S., Oberauer, R., & Gignac. G. E. (2013) NASA faked the moon Tichy. N., & Cohen E. (2002). deader.rflip engine. - How . inning companies build leadership at 14, 865-PT7. landing - Therefore. (climate) science is a hoax an anatomy of the motivated rejection of ever y le vyi. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Epitropak). O., & Martin. R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of scitlDice Psychological .Science, 24/> ), 022-03.3. do1:10.1 1/7/0930/9/01 24e/080 Thi-Bien. M. (2006). Relational leadcrehip theory: Exploring be social processes of leader- implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of L Ord, R. G., & Matter , K. J. (199 1). Leadership and +.1%*.