This article was downloaded by: [212.184.196.203] On: 22 September 2015, At: 04:37Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA

Organization Science

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://pubsonline.informs.org

The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema: Perceptionsof Network Structure Affect Gendered Attributions ofCharismaRaina A. Brands, Jochen I. Menges, Martin Kilduff

To cite this article:Raina A. Brands, Jochen I. Menges, Martin Kilduff (2015) The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema: Perceptions of NetworkStructure Affect Gendered Attributions of Charisma. Organization Science 26(4):1210-1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0965

Full terms and conditions of use: http://pubsonline.informs.org/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial useor systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisherapproval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.

The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitnessfor a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, orinclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, orsupport of claims made of that product, publication, or service.

Copyright © 2015, INFORMS

Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages

INFORMS is the largest professional society in the world for professionals in the fields of operations research, managementscience, and analytics.For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org

OrganizationScienceVol. 26, No. 4, July–August 2015, pp. 1210–1225ISSN 1047-7039 (print) � ISSN 1526-5455 (online) http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0965

© 2015 INFORMS

The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema: Perceptions ofNetwork Structure Affect Gendered Attributions of Charisma

Raina A. BrandsLondon Business School, London NW1 4SA, United Kingdom, rbrands@london.edu

Jochen I. MengesWHU–Otto Beisheim School of Management, 40233 Düsseldorf, Germany, jochen.menges@whu.edu

Martin KilduffUniversity College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom, mjkilduff@gmail.com

Charisma is crucially important for a range of leadership outcomes. Charisma is also in the eye of the beholder—anattribute perceived by followers. Traditional leadership theory has tended to assume charismatic attributions flow to

men rather than women. We challenge this assumption of an inevitable charismatic bias toward men leaders. We proposethat gender-biased attributions about the charismatic leadership of men and women are facilitated by the operation of aleader-in-social-network schema. Attributions of charismatic leadership depend on the match between the gender of theleader and the perceived structure of the network. In three studies encompassing both experimental and survey data, weshow that when team advice networks are perceived to be centralized around one or a few individuals, women leadersare seen as less charismatic than men leaders. However, when networks are perceived to be cohesive (many connectionsamong individuals), it is men who suffer a charismatic leadership disadvantage relative to women. Perceptions of leadershipdepend not only on whether the leader is a man or a woman but also on the social network context in which the leader isembedded.

Keywords : charismatic leadership; social networks; gender; schemasHistory : Published online in Articles in Advance March 23, 2015.

IntroductionTo be an effective leader, it is crucial to be granted lead-ership qualities by others. Subordinates confer leader-ship qualities (such as charisma; see Weber 1947) onsome but not all formally appointed leaders. In thisperceptual process, current research suggests women,relative to men, are disadvantaged both in how they areperceived in formal leadership roles (Eagly et al. 1992)and in how they are perceived in informal leadershiproles in social networks (Burt 1992). But this researchconsensus may be overly focused on organizational con-texts that display a traditional centralized structure. Weexplore the possibility that men and women may bedifferentially conferred with charismatic leadership qual-ities depending on the structure of relationships (central-ized or cohesive) in which these leaders are embedded.

We suggest a leader-in-social-network schema thatcontains abstract information concerning leaders insocial network contexts (see Lord and Foti 1986).This schema enables individuals to anticipate a matchbetween the gender of the leader and the structure ofthe social network, thereby influencing attributions ofcharismatic leadership. Schemas are organized represen-tations of past behaviors and experiences that function astheories about reality to guide the individual in constru-ing new experiences (Baldwin 1992). Individuals tend

to simplify complex phenomena by filtering informationthrough these preexisting knowledge systems (Neisser1976). Person-in-situation schemas, such as the leader-in-social-network schema that we propose, tend to bericher, more accessible, and more widely used by peo-ple than simple schemas relating just to persons or scriptschemas that describe event sequences. We draw fromcognitive psychology and schema research to offer anew approach to the question of why certain people areattributed with charismatic leadership.

Specifically, we suggest that people have expectationsof the types of leaders—men or women—appropriatefor different social network structures. When the indi-vidual perceives that people in a team go to one or a fewothers for advice (a network pattern indicative of statusor power centralization), then the individual is likely toexpect the leader to be a man. Centralization concernsthe extent to which there is a well-defined power or sta-tus structure within a group, a context associated withmasculine gender stereotypes (Acker 1990) and withactual male behavior in groups (Aries 1976). When theindividual perceives that people in a team go to manyothers for advice (a network pattern indicative of cohe-sion), then the individual is likely to expect the leaderto be a woman. Cohesion concerns the extent to whichgroup members are bonded together (Beal et al. 2003),

1210

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1211

a context associated with female gender stereotypes(Eagly and Karau 2002) and with actual women’s behav-ior in groups (Maccoby 1990). Our core proposition isthat people expect to see a male leader when the networkis perceived as hierarchical and a female leader whenthe network is perceived as cohesive. Subjective evalua-tions of leadership quality (as assessed by attributions ofcharisma) will tend to be enhanced when expectationsare met relative to when expectations are violated.

We focus specifically on charismatic leadership in thispaper for two reasons. First, charisma is central to lead-ership theory and research (Conger and Kanungo 1987).Indeed, “charisma is the most important component inthe larger concept of transformational leadership” (Bass1985, p. 34). Scholars have called for the examinationof the specific components of transformational leader-ship, highlighting attributions of charisma as an impor-tant field of study (van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013).Second, more than other aspects of leadership, charis-matic leadership is in the eye of the beholder (Avolioand Yammarino 1990). From its inception, charismaticleadership has been defined as an attribute perceivedby followers: leaders cannot be charismatic unless fol-lowers perceive them as such (Weber 1947). We followprior work in recognizing that individual judgments con-cerning a leader’s charisma are more open to situationalinfluence than are attributions concerning more objec-tive aspects of leadership such as transactional leader-ship (Pastor et al. 2007).

Charismatic LeadershipCharismatic leadership theory has traditionally describedthe special qualities and behaviors of leaders (Weber1947), including behaviors such as challenging the sta-tus quo and nurturing followers’ development (Congerand Kanungo 1987). Charismatic leaders set grand, long-term visions and inspire others to enact these visions(Conger and Kanungo 1987). But recent theory hasshifted the focus toward a recognition of charisma asa relationship between the leaders who exhibit certaincharacteristics and the followers whose own characteris-tics lead them to perceive leaders as charismatic (How-ell and Shamir 2005). Leadership resides within thesocial system that develops between leaders and follow-ers (Balkundi and Kilduff 2005). To the extent that fol-lowers endorse a leader as charismatic, they place moretrust in the leader, feel more satisfied and more moti-vated, and experience higher levels of empowerment andself-efficacy (Conger et al. 2000, Jung and Avolio 2000).Attributions of charismatic leadership predict team per-formance (Balkundi et al. 2011).

The process by which a follower attributes charismato a leader involves a cognitive matching between thefollower’s implicit leadership theory (comprising proto-typical expectations of leader characteristics and behav-iors) and the actual leader’s characteristics and behaviors

(as perceived by the follower) (Lord et al. 1984). If theleader matches the prototype, the follower endows theleader with a charismatic personality (Nye and Forsyth1991), seeing the leader as a role model, someone witha vision who sets high performance expectations thatthe team collectively accepts. Given the availability ofimplicit leadership theories, social perceivers may makejudgments based on little or no evidence (Lord andEmrich 2000, Lord and Maher 1994). It is the charis-matic leadership prototype that supplies missing infor-mation and enables the charismatic attribution (Lord andFoti 1986). Notably, the charismatic prototype is notfixed: as follower or situational factors change, defini-tions of charismatic leadership also change (Lord et al.2001). For example, attributions of charismatic leader-ship are susceptible to changing factors such as teamperformance (Shamir 1992) and followers’ arousal (Pas-tor et al. 2007).

Leadership prototypes are implicitly held and functionlargely outside of people’s awareness. People have gen-erally little insight into how these prototypes affect—andsometimes bias—their assessment of those in leadershippositions. Thus, it is not unusual to find women leadersevaluated less favorably than men (Eagly et al. 1992)despite both genders displaying similar behavior (Eaglyet al. 1995). Leadership prototypes are part of a widernet of social-cognitive associations people hold in theirminds. Leadership prototypes influence, and are influ-enced by, the nodes and connections within this broadermental net, including associations with gender stereo-types (Sczesny 2005). Gender bias occurs because theprototype of an effective leader from which attributionsare drawn is typically considered to be male (Schein1973). Women, by virtue of their gender, are seen asless able to fulfill the requirements of leadership (rolecongruity theory; Eagly and Karau 2002).

In our research we challenge the inevitability of biasedattributions concerning women’s leadership. By mov-ing to the consideration of a leader-in-social-networkschema, we open up the possibility that schematicattributions concerning leadership affect both genders,depending on the social network context. We drawfrom schema theory (Baldwin 1992, Lord and Maher1994), cognitive social network research (e.g., Janicikand Larrick 2005), and gender schema research (e.g.,Eagly and Carli 2003) to forge a new approach to theenduring question of how the expectations that peoplebring to the workplace affect leadership evaluations.

The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaPerson-in-situation schemas contain information aboutpeople and behavior typically found in specific socialsituations. These schemas combine elements of personschemas (that facilitate the categorization of people intotypes; see Cantor and Mischel 1979) and script schemas

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1212 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

(that describe the appropriate sequence of events ingiven situations; see Schank and Abelson 1977). Theseschemas allow people to go beyond the informationavailable in any particular situation and fill in the gapsin knowledge with details that would be expected on thebasis of past experience (Baldwin 1992).

We suggest that the process by which an observerendorses an individual as a charismatic leader involves acognitive matching between the observer’s expectationsconcerning the types of people suitable for leadershipand the extent to which the individual is perceived tofulfill those expectations in particular social networkcontexts. The leader-in-social-network schema developsfrom repeated interactions individuals have and observewithin the social networks to which they belong (Janicikand Larrick 2005). Individuals build up knowledge con-cerning the extent to which patterns of advice giving andreceiving tend to be associated with men or women lead-ers. We examine advice networks because advice givingand taking relate to leader charisma (e.g., Balkundi et al.2011) and leader performance (Balkundi et al. 2011).We focus on social network perceptions because implicitleadership theories draw on people’s internal subjectiverepresentations rather than on external objective realities(Lord 2005).

Perceptions of advice networks are likely to differalong two structural dimensions—centralization, as indi-cated by the perceived centralization of the network,and cohesion, as indicated by the perceived density ofthe network. Centralization concerns the extent to whichthere is a well-defined power or status structure withinthe team. Cohesion refers to the extent to which peo-ple within a team have many rather than few connec-tions with each other. The perception of a social networkstructure as centralized cues expectations for a leaderwho can control the levers of power and influence. Bycontrast, the perception of a social network structured ascohesive cues expectations for a leader who can relateto others and manage complex interpersonal situations.These leadership expectations, cued by the perceivedsocial network context, align with gender stereotypes,leading to a bias toward male leaders in hierarchicalcontexts and toward female leaders in cohesive con-texts. Thus we suggest that the leader-in-social-networkschema offers two prototypical matches between leadergender and social network structure. One prototypicalpattern involves a male leader in a centralized networkin which one or a few individuals dominate. The otherprototypical pattern involves a female leader in a cohe-sive network in which many individuals interact.

Centralization: The Male Leader in aCentralized NetworkCentralization is the extent to which a network is dom-inated by a single individual (Freeman 1978–1979). Fornetworks that depict advice interactions, centralization

can signal either status or power depending on whethernetwork relations involve either deference or resourceflows (see Magee and Galinsky 2008, p. 359). Advicenetworks that are highly centralized feature clear peck-ing orders and stratification of status and power.

When individuals perceive advice networks to behighly centralized, they anticipate the familiar networkpattern of a star with ties radiating out to others fromthe central actor. This image of a dominant actor atthe center of the network matches prototypes of menleaders as controlling and dominant (Eagly and Karau2002, Schein 1973), with high status and power (Eaglyand Steffen 1984). Because power and status differencesbetween individuals are particularly salient in centralizednetworks, such contexts are likely to cue an expecta-tion of a male leader. Indeed, networks in which infor-mal power is perceived to be centralized in one or afew individuals resemble the traditional, formal struc-tures of command-and-control that are associated withmale stereotypes about leadership (Schein 1973). Thesehierarchical structures are readily perceived (Zitek andTiedens 2012) and tend to reinforce male gender stereo-types, thereby placing men at an advantage over women(Acker 1990).

Networks in which informal status and power differ-ences are perceived to be accentuated provide a percep-tual frame that tends to diminish leadership attributionsto women and enhance leadership attributions to men bycueing expectations about the type of individuals bestsuited to be leaders. In centralized advice networks, indi-viduals expect to encounter leaders who exhibit power,dominance, courage, and boldness—characteristics thatare prescribed for men leaders but proscribed for womenleaders (Eagly and Karau 2002). As such, we expectwomen leaders embedded in networks that are perceivedto be centralized to be attributed with less charisma thanare men. This bias arises not because of actual behav-ioral differences between men and women as leadersbut because men, rather than women, fulfill the leader-in-social-network expectations in centralized networks.Attributions of charisma to female leaders (relative tomale leaders) in centralized contexts suffer, we suggest,because women leaders represent a mismatch with thecharismatic leadership prototype, whereas men leadersrepresent a match with the charismatic leadership proto-type, that is triggered by the centralized context.

Hypothesis 1. To the extent that team advice net-works are perceived to be centralized, women will beseen as less charismatic leaders than men.

Cohesion: The Female Leader in a DenselyConnected NetworkDensity is a network-level property that refers to thenumber of ties that exist within a network relative tothe number of ties that are possible (Wasserman andFaust 1994). Advice networks characterized by many

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1213

connections between group members (relative to thenumber of connections possible) tend to be experiencedas cohesive (Sparrowe et al. 2001). Dense networks pro-mote cohesion by reducing the likelihood of conflictbetween team members (Labianca et al. 1998) and byfacilitating the development of shared understandingsand trust (Coleman 1988). Therefore, to the extent thatthe individual perceives the advice network to be char-acterized by many exchanges, the individual is likely toanticipate a collaborative, communal setting character-ized by mutuality and generalized reciprocity.

The anticipation of communality in cohesive net-works relates closely to expectations concerning womenrelative to men. Women are presumed to be “socialspecialists” (Bales and Slater 1955, Meeker andWeitzel-O’Neill 1977). They are expected to strive forintimacy and solidarity in their interactions with oth-ers (Moskowitz et al. 1994) and are associated withenabling interaction styles that support and maintainsocial exchanges (Maccoby 1990). Stereotypical womenleaders are expected to be supportive and nurturing(Rosette and Tost 2010). Thus, networks in whichinformal interactions are perceived to be cohesive pro-vide a perceptual frame that matches women leaders.By contrast, there is a mismatch between the pro-totypical leader expected in a cohesive network andthe male leadership stereotype. Men are expected tostrive for status and dominance rather than communal-ity (Diekman et al. 2004). This expectation for menprescribes aggressive, forceful, and competitive behav-ior to gain status and also proscribes yielding behavior(Prentice and Carranza 2002).

The feminized-leadership context engendered by theperception of cohesion, therefore, places a man leaderin a position where he is likely to be perceived in vio-lation of core gender stereotypes and a woman leader ina position where she is likely to be perceived as adher-ing to core gender stereotypes. And, ironically, thosemen who try to adapt to the prevailing communal normsby, for example, sharing credit for their work, are likelyto find their modesty not only unappreciated but actu-ally punished because modesty in a man violates genderexpectations (Moss-Racusin et al. 2010). Attributions ofcharisma to male leaders (relative to female leaders) incohesive network contexts suffer, we suggest, becausemale leaders represent a mismatch with the female lead-ership prototype appropriate to the cohesive context.

Hypothesis 2. To the extent that team advice net-works are perceived to be cohesive, men will be seen asless charismatic leaders than women.

Our theoretical approach focuses on networks thatexhibit centralization or cohesion. To test the hypothe-ses, we require perceptual data concerning networks thatare seen to be either centralized or cohesive.

Study 1The purpose of Study 1 was to show, experimentally,that the differing patterns anticipated by the leader-in-social-network schema would affect the attributions ofcharismatic leadership to men and women. Centraliza-tion and cohesion are structural properties of networks,but people’s perceptions of these network properties maydiffer from the actual properties. Indeed, individualsare unlikely to perceive network properties accurately(see Kilduff et al. 2008). Rather, individuals tend to cog-nitively impose systematic structure on the networks inwhich they habitually participate (Freeman et al. 1987).Prior experimental work on cognitive social structuresshows that individuals bring schematic expectations tobear on perceptions of social networks (Janicik andLarrick 2005). We bring these lines of work together bytesting whether the same underlying network, presentedto appear either centralized or dense, triggers differentschematic expectations.

Method

Sample. We recruited 198 individuals (79 men,81 women, and 38 who did not report their gender) froman online sample. The participants were all located inthe United States, were mostly white (78%), and aver-aged 32 years of age (SD = 10002). They had an averageof 14 years’ work experience (SD = 9098) and were allcurrently employed full or part time.

Procedure. The experiment used a 2 (gender ofleader: man or woman) × 2 (advice network configu-ration: status centralized or cohesive) between-subjectsvignette design. (The manipulations are available assupplemental material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0965.) Participants read about the leader of TeamMedia in a professional services firm and about the inter-actions within the team’s advice network. The descrip-tion of the team advice network was accompanied by anetwork diagram. Participants were then asked a numberof questions about the leader.

Gender Manipulation. Participants in the womanleader condition read about a leader named Michelle.Participants in the man leader condition read about aleader named Michael.

Network Structure Manipulation. On their screens,participants saw a network of nodes (labeled with peo-ple’s names) and lines (representing connections). Weset the centralization score of the network at 71% andthe density score at 33%. The leader was shown as con-nected to every other team member (and so had a cen-trality score of 1). The other members of the team weregiven gender-ambiguous names to avoid the possibilitythat individuals would make attributions about leadersbased on the depiction of their personal ties to men andwomen in their team.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1214 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

Although we presented all participants with the samestructural network, we arranged for different depictionsof this same network to be viewed depending on experi-mental condition.1 The first depiction, designed to repre-sent centralization, resembled a star network. The seconddepiction, designed to represent cohesion, resembled adense network. A pretest of this manipulation confirmedthat people tended to see the star network (M = 19046,SE = 1009) as significantly more status concentrated thanthe cohesive network (M = 15007, SE = 1005, F411275 =

8041, p = 0001). Likewise, individuals tended to see thecohesive network (M = 19037, SE = 0088) as signifi-cantly more cohesive than the star network (M = 16069,SE = 0094 F411275 = 4048, p = 0004).

Dependent Variables. Participants were asked to ratethe leader’s charismatic qualities on 15 items thatassessed typical aspects of charismatic leadership,including articulating a vision, providing a role model,setting high performance expectations, and fosteringacceptance of group goals (� = 0093) (Podsakoff et al.1990). As we report in detail in the results section, wechecked to see whether other (noncharismatic) aspectsof leadership were affected by the independent vari-ables. Specifically, we asked participants to rate lead-ers’ intellectual stimulation on three items (� = 0088)and leaders’ individualized consideration on four items(� = 0073). We also measured transactional leader-ship using five items concerning the leader’s contingentreward behavior (�= 0060) (Podsakoff et al. 1990). Allresponses were given on a Likert scale from 1 = stronglydisagree to 7 = strongly agree, and were averaged priorto analysis.

Control Variable. We used gender as the control vari-able in our experiments. Participants reported their gen-der, which was coded as 0 = man and 1 = woman.

Attention and Manipulation ChecksPrior to analysis, we established that responses wouldbe excluded if (a) they came from the same IP address,(b) response times were greater than two standard devia-tions above the mean, or (c) the gender of the leader wasrecalled incorrectly. Ten cases were excluded becauserespondents violated condition (b).

ResultsA 2 (gender of leader: man or woman) × 2 (networkconfiguration: cohesive or centralized) analysis of vari-ance revealed a main effect of network condition onattributions of leadership (F4111975 = 11009, p = 00001,partial �2 = 0005), suggesting that leaders in cohesivenetworks (M = 5017, SE = 0011) were perceived to bemore charismatic than leaders in centralized networks(M = 4063, SE = 0011). There was no main effect ofleader gender (F4111975 = 0033, p = 0056).

We predicted that charismatic attributions to leaderswould depend on the fit between leader gender andnetwork structure. And, indeed, there was a signifi-cant interaction between the gender of the leader andthe configuration of the network (F4111975 = 3096, p =

00048, partial �2 = 0002; see Figure 1). More specif-ically, Hypothesis 1 (in centralized networks, womenleaders would be seen as less charismatic than men lead-ers) was supported. Even though participants saw thesame centralized network in both leader conditions, par-ticipants who read about a leader named Michelle (M =

4052, SE = 0.12) saw her as less charismatic than par-ticipants who read about a leader named Michael (M =

4.75, SE = 0.19, t = −1098, p = 0.05). Hypothesis 2(in cohesive networks, men leaders would be seen as lesscharismatic than woman leaders) was also supported.Even though participants saw the same cohesive networkin both leader conditions, participants who read about aleader named Michael (M = 4.69, SE = 0.18) saw himas less charismatic than participants who read about aleader named Michelle (M = 5037, SE = 0.13, t = 2065,p = 00009). The pattern of results was the same whenwe used analysis of covariance with the gender of theparticipant as a covariate on the reduced sample of the160 people who reported their gender.

Additional Analyses. We tested whether our hypothe-ses would be supported for other components oftransformational leadership (intellectual stimulation andindividualized consideration) and for transactional lead-ership. However, as expected from our theoretical rea-soning, the results were specific to charisma. We foundno effect of the interaction between network config-uration and leader gender on intellectual stimulation(F4111595 = 2.34, p = 0013), individualized consideration(F4111595 = 0.27, p = 0060), or transactional leadership(F4111595 = 2.12, p = 0015).

Figure 1 Study 1: Attributions of Charismatic Leadership asa Function of the Leader-in-Social-Network Schema

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

CohesiveCentralized

Att

ribu

tion

sof

char

ism

atic

lead

ersh

ip

MichaelMichelle

p = 0.009

p = 0.05

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1215

DiscussionStudy 1 provides evidence in support of the purportedeffects of the leader-in-social-network schema on attri-butions of charisma. Women leaders were attributedwith less charisma than men leaders in the contextof centralized networks, whereas women leaders wereattributed more charisma than men leaders in the con-text of cohesive networks. But does the leader-in-social-network schema affect attributions about leaders in thereal world? Experiments allow us to establish causalityby providing a high degree of control, but they can exag-gerate gender bias in leadership evaluations (Eagly et al.1992). Thus testing our hypotheses in a field setting isimportant for determining the validity of our theory.

Study 2In our second study we tested the hypotheses in a sur-vey of individuals working in teams in real organizations.We also examined whether the perceptual-mismatcheffects on attributions of leadership tended to be exclu-sively concerned with charisma or whether they extendedto other leadership outcomes including noncharismaticaspects of transformational leadership, leadership effec-tiveness (Giessner and van Knippenberg 2008), andleader–follower relationship quality (i.e., leader–memberexchange; see Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995).

Method

Sample. We recruited and paid 149 (91 men and 58women) U.S. resident full- or part-time employed indi-viduals for a study on social networks. Respondentswere recruited from an online panel and represented awide variety of industries and occupations, were pre-dominantly white (79.5%), and were on average 31 yearsold (SD = 8.87).

Procedure. To measure respondents’ perceived socialnetworks, we used the ego network method (Burt 1992).Respondents were asked to list and describe all mem-bers of their team in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, andformal leadership responsibilities. Subsequently, respon-dents were asked “who would you go to for adviceon work-related matters?” followed by a list of theircoworkers’ names. Respondents checked the names ofthose coworkers from whom they sought advice. Foreach team member in turn, respondents were then askedto check the names of coworkers whom the team mem-ber went to for advice. Thus each respondent provided acomplete network map concerning his or her perceptionsof who shared advice relations with whom in the team,commonly referred to as a “slice” in cognitive socialstructure research (Krackhardt 1987).

Because we were only interested in studying leaders,we only included respondents’ observations of individu-als in their team who had formal managerial status and

excluded respondents’ observations of those team mem-bers who had no formal managerial responsibility. Onaverage, there were 2.6 people in each respondent’s teamwith formal leadership roles. Thus the 149 respondentsto our survey provided 384 observations of the leadersin their teams.

Measures

Leader Gender. Leader gender was coded as 0 = manleader and 1 = woman leader.

Advice Network Centralization. Advice network cen-tralization was measured as the average difference inindegree centrality between the most central actor andall others (Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Advice Network Cohesion. Advice network cohesionwas measured as network density, calculated by dividingthe total number of reported ties by the total number ofpossible ties (Wasserman and Faust 1994).

Charismatic Leadership. As in Study 1, respondentswere asked to rate their leaders on 15 items that assessedcharismatic leadership (Podsakoff et al. 1990); �= 0094.

Other Outcome Variables. To examine whether theeffects generalized to other aspects of leadership, weincluded further outcome measures in this study. Lead-ers’ individualized consideration (� = 0.66) and intel-lectual stimulation (� = 0088) were assessed with thesame measure as in Study 1. In addition, we included asix-item measure of leadership effectiveness (� = 0.85)(Giessner and van Knippenberg 2008). We also exam-ined our hypotheses in the context of perceived rela-tionship quality between leaders and followers using aseven-item measure of leader–member exchange (� =

0087) (Graen and Uhl-Bien 1995). Respondents providedratings on 1–7 Likert scales.

Controls. Leaders’ demographic characteristics havethe potential to bias attributions of leadership qualities(Rosette et al. 2008), so we controlled for leader age andethnicity. Individuals who occupy central roles withinnetworks tend to be seen as more charismatic (Balkundiet al. 2011), so we controlled for the perceived central-ity of the leader. We controlled for team size given thatnetwork density is negatively correlated with the numberof people in the network and we controlled for demo-graphic characteristics of the team in terms of the ratioof men to women and how demographically diverse theteam was in respect to age and ethnicity. Finally, wecontrolled for the gender of the respondent in the analy-sis. We considered the inclusion of further control vari-ables, including full- or part-time employment, industryaffiliation, and occupation, but because these variableswere not associated with any of the focal variables inthis study, they were dropped for the sake of modelparsimony.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1216 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

Attention ChecksPrior to analysis, we established that responses wouldbe excluded if (a) they came from the same IP addressor (b) response times were greater than two standarddeviations above the mean. Five cases were excludedbecause respondents violated condition (a).

AnalysisThe data were nested in that each respondent potentiallyprovided observations concerning the multiple managerspresent in the team. Observations from the same indi-vidual were not independent, and therefore, a regressionanalysis was inappropriate. To account for the depen-dency in our data, we used random coefficient modelingwhere target (level 1) and respondent (level 2) effectswere modeled. Our hypotheses predicted a cross-levelinteraction between a respondent’s mean-centered per-ceptions of network structure (level 2) and leader gen-der (level 1) on attributions of charisma, modeled usingslopes-as-outcomes models.

ResultsTable 1 shows means, standard deviations, and correla-tions. People attributed charisma to leaders perceived asembedded in centralized networks (r = 0.36, p = 0.01),and people in general saw women as less charismaticthan men (r = −0016, p = 0.01). Table 2 presents theresults of regression analyses that controlled for numer-ous other variables. In line with the bivariate correla-tion, Model 2 in Table 2 shows that people attributedmore charisma to leaders to the extent they perceivedthose leaders to be embedded in centralized advice net-works (� = 0.02, p = 0.001). But charismatic attribu-tions were not influenced by leader gender (�= −0015,p = 0015). Further, Model 4 in Table 2 reveals no evi-dence that people attributed charisma to their leaders onthe basis of how cohesive networks were perceived to be(� = −0028, p = 0.55). Given these main effect results(that differed from Study 1), the question remained asto whether the hypotheses, which posited interactioneffects, received support.

Hypothesis Tests. Recall the prediction in Hypothe-sis 1 that in networks perceived as centralized, women,relative to men, would be seen as less charismatic. AsModel 3 in Table 2 shows, this hypothesis was sup-ported: there was a significant cross-level interactionbetween team member gender and perceived advice net-work centralization on attributions of charisma (� =

−0001, p = 0.04). The simple slopes analysis (conductedat 1.5 standard deviations from the mean2) confirmedthe expected pattern (see Figure 2). Individuals tended toattribute less charisma to women than to men when theyperceived their team networks to be highly status con-centrated (z= −2052, p = 0.02). However, when central-ization was perceived to be low, there was no significant Table

1Study2:

Mea

ns,

StandardDev

iations,

andCorrelations

Varia

ble

Mea

nSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

1Cha

risma

4042

1043

2Pe

rceive

dce

ntralization

1709

227

099

0036

∗∗

3Pe

rceive

dco

hesion

0041

0023

0003

−00

18∗

4Le

ader

gend

era

0049

0050

−00

16∗∗

−00

33∗∗

−00

055

Perceive

dce

ntralization

×20

0110

077

0008

0061

∗∗

−00

0900

31∗∗∗

Lead

erge

nder

6Pe

rceive

dco

hesion

×00

1100

21−

0007

−00

29∗∗

0048

∗∗

0086

∗∗∗

0022

∗∗

Lead

erge

nder

7Le

ader

age

4102

912

007

−00

14∗∗

−00

29∗∗

0001

0024

∗−

0012

∗00

22∗∗∗

8Le

ader

ethn

icity

b00

3500

4800

16∗∗

0045

∗∗

−00

05−

0007

0017

∗∗

−00

04−

0026

∗∗

9Le

ader

centrality

2005

2048

−00

04−

0026

∗∗

005∗

∗−

0009

−00

1100

0600

06−

0007

10Te

amsize

7015

2035

0007

0025

∗∗

−00

34∗∗∗

−00

0700

06−

0017

−00

0200

1200

1411

Team

gend

erratio

0035

0026

0006

0002

−00

0800

23∗∗∗

0033

∗∗

0033

∗∗∗

−00

1400

1200

0100

0712

Team

ethn

icity

varia

bility

0054

0067

−00

17−

0017

∗−

0003

0009

−00

1500

16−

0002

0020

∗00

11−

0004

0013

13Te

amag

eva

riability

7061

4082

−00

19∗

−00

25∗∗

−00

0300

33∗∗

−00

1500

30∗∗

0066

∗∗∗

−00

28∗∗

0014

−00

0500

1100

0614

Res

pond

entg

ende

r00

3900

48−

0022

∗−

0012

−00

0500

47∗∗∗

0013

0039

∗∗

0024

∗∗

−00

0800

10−

0008

0023

∗∗

0009

0021

∗

a0

=m

an,1

=w

oman

.b0

=w

hite

,1=

notw

hite

.∗p<

0005

;∗∗p<

0001

(two-

taile

dte

sts)

.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1217

Table 2 Study 2: Effects of Leader Gender and Perceived Social Network Structure on Attributions of Charismatic Leadership

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Intercept 4070 4075 4080 4070 4070400135 400125 400125 400135 400135

Individual variablesLeader ethnicity 0015 0007 0007 0015 0017

400125 400125 400115 400125 400125Leader age −0001 −0001 −0001 −0001 −0001

400015 400015 400015 400015 400015Leader’s perceived centrality 0013∗∗∗ 0014∗∗∗ 0014∗∗ 0014∗∗∗ 0015∗∗∗

400035 400045 400045 400035 400035Respondent gender −0036 −0029 −0024 −0036 −0036

400245 400245 400255 400245 400245Leader gender −0015 −0015 −0029∗ −0015 −0015

400115 400125 400125 400115 400115

Team variablesTeam size −0001 −0004 −0005 −0002 −0002

400055 400045 400045 400055 400055Team gender ratio 0046 0025 0044 0042 0041

400495 400415 400435 400495 400495Team ethnicity variability −0029† −0015 −0017 −0028 −0031†

400175 400155 400155 400175 400175Team age variability −0004 −0002 −0003 −0004 −0004

400025 400035 400035 400025 400025Perceived centralization 0002∗∗∗ 0002∗∗∗

400015 400015Perceived cohesion −0029 −0056

400525 400545

Two-way interactionsLeader gender×Perceived centralization −0001∗

400015Leader gender×Perceived cohesion 0085∗

400415

Level 1 R2a 0012 0017 0018 0012 0013Level 2 R2a 0007 0010 0011 0008 0009�2b 8011∗∗∗ 9082∗∗ 0028 4063†

Notes. N = 386 observations at level 1 and N = 149 observations at level 2. Standard errors are in parentheses.aCalculated as per Snijders and Bosker (1999).bLikelihood ratio test of model fit.†p < 0010; ∗p < 0005; ∗∗p < 0001; ∗∗∗p < 00001 (two-tailed tests).

difference between the charisma attributed to men andwomen (z= 0099, p = 0032).

Thus there is evidence of biased perceptions ofwomen’s leadership qualities. Does similar bias affectperceptions of men’s leadership qualities? Recall thatHypothesis 2 predicted that in networks perceived ascohesive, men, relative to women, would be seen as lesscharismatic. As Model 5 in Table 2 shows, this hypoth-esis was supported: there was a significant interactionbetween team member gender and perceived advice net-work cohesion (� = 0085, p = 0004). The simple slopesanalysis (conducted at 1.5 standard deviations from themean; see Preacher 2014) confirmed the expected pattern(see Figure 3). People tended to attribute less charismato men than to women when they perceived their teamnetworks to be highly cohesive, an effect that wasmarginally significant (z = 1.68, p = 0.09). However,when cohesion was perceived to be low, there was no

significant difference between the charisma attributed tomen and women (z= 0.44, p = 0065).

Additional Analyses. We examined whether the gen-der biasing effects of centralization depended oncohesion (and vice versa), but the three-way inter-action between gender, centralization, and cohesionwas not significant (� = 0.01, p = 0097). We alsotested whether other components of transformationalleadership—namely, intellectual stimulation and individ-ualized consideration—would be affected by the leader-in-network schema. With intellectual stimulation as thedependent variable, there was no significant interactionbetween perceived centralization and gender (� = 0.34,p = 0.74) or perceived advice network cohesion andgender (� = 1.95, p = 0.23). The results were similarfor individualized consideration: there was no signif-icant interaction between perceived centralization and

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1218 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

Figure 2 Study 2: Attributions of Charisma to Men andWomen Leaders in the Context of PerceivedCentralization

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low centralization High centralization

Attr

ibut

ions

of

char

ism

atic

lead

ersh

ip

MenWomen

p = 0.02

p = 0.32

gender (� = 0.07, p = 0.11) or perceived advice net-work cohesion and gender (�= 0.77, p = 0.64). Further-more, with a measure of leadership effectiveness as thedependent variable, there was no significant interactionbetween perceived centralization and gender (� = 0.01,p = 0.59) or perceived advice network cohesion andgender (� = 0.49, p = 0.58). The results were similarwith leader–member exchange as the dependent variable:there was no significant interaction between perceivedcentralization and gender (�= −0001, p = 0.97) or per-ceived advice network cohesion and gender (� = 0.15,p = 0.66).

DiscussionThe results of Study 2 show that men leaders were seenas more charismatic than women leaders to the extentthat people perceived their team advice networks to behighly centralized. This gender bias reversed when teamadvice networks were perceived to be cohesive, however,

Figure 3 Study 2: Attributions of Charisma to Men and WomenLeaders in the Context of Perceived Cohesion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Low cohesion High cohesion

Attr

ibut

ions

of

char

ism

atic

lead

ersh

ip

MenWomen

p = 0.65p = 0.09

so that women leaders were perceived to be more charis-matic than men leaders. Further, these results (in supportof the hypotheses) were restricted to charismatic leader-ship attributions.

Both studies presented so far, however, entail a limi-tation in that they do not permit us to test the effects ofcentralization and cohesion independently of one another.Networks that feature dense connections tend to bedecentralized; thus the network properties of cohesionand centralization tend to be negatively correlated. How-ever, in the realm of perception, people are likely to dis-tort both the extent of centralization and the extent ofconnectedness beyond the empirically possible (Kilduffet al. 2008). Study 3 allows us to capture indepen-dent measures of perceived centralization and perceivedcohesion.

Study 3In this study, we tested predictions concerning theleader-in-social-network schema with a new approach toassessing perceptions of centralization and cohesion inadvice networks (Mehra et al. 2014). We wanted to seehow respondents would attribute charisma to men andwomen leaders when asked directly about the networkstructures in which they participated. This approachallowed us to evaluate attributions of charisma to menand women leaders in cases when both centralizationand cohesion were perceived, thereby fully elaboratingour theoretical model.

Method

Sample. Respondents were 157 (79 men and 76 women)U.S. resident full- or part-time employees representingmore than 20 different industries and a wide variety ofoccupations. They were mostly white (77%) and on aver-age 33 years old (SD = 10.88) and had worked for anaverage of 13 years (SD = 9.99). We recruited and paidthese respondents through an online panel.

Procedure. After connecting to our website, respon-dents were asked to complete two sets of questions,the order of which was counterbalanced.3 One set ofquestions concerned the demographic characteristics andcharisma of respondents’ team leaders; the other set ofquestions concerned respondents’ perceptions of theirteam networks.

Measures

Leader Gender. As in Study 2, leader gender wascoded as 0 = man and 1 = woman.

Centralization and Cohesion. We presented respon-dents with two visual scales adapted from Mehra et al.(2014).4 One scale represented perceived centralization

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1219

and ranged from completely centralized to completelydecentralized. The other scale represented perceivedcohesion and ranged from 0% to 100% density.

Charismatic Leadership. As in Studies 1 and 2, re-spondents were asked to rate their leaders on 15 itemsthat assessed charismatic leadership (Podsakoff et al.1990); �= 0096.

Other Outcome Variables. Leaders’ individualizedconsideration and intellectual stimulation were assessedwith the same measures as in Studies 1 and 2. For indi-vidualized consideration, �= 0.62; for intellectual stim-ulation, �= 0.90.

Control Variables. As in Study 2, we controlled fordemographic characteristics of the leader, including ageand ethnicity, and the demographic composition of theteam in terms of age, ethnicity, and gender ratio. We alsoagain controlled for the gender of the respondents. Indi-viduals who occupy central roles within networks tendto be seen as more charismatic (Balkundi et al. 2011), sowe controlled for the perceived centrality of the leader.We also controlled for individuals’ perceptions of theirown centrality in the network because people’s reactionsto the perceived degree of centralization in their teamadvice networks may be affected by perceptions of theirown importance within those interactions. We measuredboth leader and respondent centrality by describing cen-trality accompanied by a visual depiction and then ask-ing respondents to indicate their own and their leaders’centrality on a five-point scale (1 = on the edge of thenetwork to 5 = in the center of the network). Finally,because large networks tend to be less dense than smallnetworks, we controlled for team size.

Attention ChecksPrior to analysis, we established that responses wouldbe excluded if (a) they came from the same IP addressor (b) response times were greater than two standarddeviations above the mean. No cases met these rulesfor exclusion; thus all respondents were included in theanalysis.

AnalysisWe conducted a multiple linear regression to examinehow respondents’ perceptions of their team advice net-works in terms of centralization and cohesion affectedthe charisma they attributed to their leaders. Centraliza-tion and cohesion were standardized prior to analysis.In social networks, density and centralization are neg-atively correlated. However, our survey design meantthat respondents were able to choose technically impos-sible configurations (e.g., dense and highly centralizednetworks). To account for this, we controlled for per-ceptions of density in our analysis of centralization, andvice versa.

ResultsTable 3 displays the descriptive statistics and correla-tions among the variables. Interestingly, respondents inthis sample, who were allowed to assess the networkproperties of centralization and cohesion independently,saw leaders in cohesive networks as charismatic (r =

0.36, p = 0.01) and leaders in centralized networks asnoncharismatic (r = −0017, p = 0.05).

Table 4 displays the regression results. Model 4 showsthe main effects of the three variables of interest, con-trolling for the other variables. Paralleling the result ofthe bivariate correlation, to the extent that respondentssaw their team advice networks as cohesive, they tendedto attribute more charisma to their leaders, regardless ofwhether the leaders were men or women (�= 5.71, p =

0.0001). There were no significant effects for networkcentralization or leader gender. Given these results, thequestion remained: Were the hypotheses (that involvedinteraction effects) supported?

Hypothesis Tests. Hypothesis 1 predicted that to theextent that team advice networks were perceived to becentralized, women would be seen as less charismaticleaders than men. As can be seen in Table 4, Model 5,there was support for this hypothesis in the form of asignificant interaction between leader gender and advicenetwork centralization (� = −5093, p = 0.04; see Fig-ure 4). Analyses of the interaction at plus and minus1.5 standard deviations from the mean (see Preacher2014) confirmed that when individuals perceived theirteam advice networks to be highly centralized, womenleaders were attributed with less charisma than menleaders (t = −1097, p = 0.03). When centralization wasperceived to be low, however, there was no genderbias in attributions of charismatic leadership (t = 1.26,p = 0021).

Hypothesis 2 predicted that to the extent that teamadvice networks were perceived to be cohesive, menwould be seen as less charismatic leaders than women.As Model 6 in Table 4 shows, this hypothesis was notsupported in this study: the interaction between cohe-sion and leader gender was not significant, suggestingthat attributions of charisma to men and women lead-ers did not differ as a function of perceptions of teamadvice network cohesion (� = 0.49, p = 0085). Rather,there continued to be a strongly significant main effectof cohesion on attributions of leadership (�= 5.79, p =

0.001) and a nonsignificant effect of leader gender (�=

−2004, n.s.). This pattern of results indicated that innetworks perceived to be cohesive, both men and womenwere perceived as charismatic leaders.

Additional Analyses. These data allowed us to testhow respondents evaluated men and women leaderswhen both centralization and cohesion were assessedseparately by respondents. We examined, therefore,

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1220 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

whether there was a three-way interaction between per-ceived centralization, perceived cohesion, and leadergender. The interaction term was not significant (� =

−302, p = 0019). Thus attributions of charisma to menversus women leaders were not affected by whether ornot advice networks perceived as cohesive were alsoseen as centralized.

Our second test of how respondents evaluated menand women leaders when both centralization and cohe-sion were perceived involved testing our hypotheses ona subsample of respondents who indicated that theyperceived their team social networks to be both cen-tralized and cohesive. We selected all respondents whoscored at or above the scale midpoint on perceptions ofboth centralization and cohesion (N = 93). Hypothesis 1(men would be attributed more charisma than women innetworks perceived as centralized) was supported by asignificant two-way interaction between gender and cen-tralization (� = −0094, p = 0003). Supplementary anal-yses confirmed that to the extent respondents perceivedtheir networks to be highly centralized, men were evalu-ated more favorably as leaders (t = −206, p = 0001), butwhen centralization was perceived to be lower, there wasno gender bias in attributions of leadership (t = 1.29,p = 0020). Recall that this result was found in a sam-ple in which all respondents perceived their networksto be relatively cohesive. Thus, even when respondentsperceived their networks to be cohesive, a conditionexpected to facilitate favorable evaluations of women’sleadership, centralization still negatively affected percep-tions of women’s charisma. Hypothesis 2 (men wouldbe attributed less charisma than women in networks per-ceived as cohesive) was not supported in this restrictedsample. The two-way interaction between leader genderand density was not significant (� = 0.51, p = 0014) inthe sample in which everyone perceived their networksto be relatively centralized.

We also tested whether the leader-in-social-networkschema would affect the intellectual stimulation andindividualized consideration components of transforma-tional leadership. It did not. We did not find a two-way interaction between leader gender and perceptionsof centralization on either intellectual stimulation (� =

−0028, p = 0066) or individualized consideration (� =

0055, p = 0047). Likewise, we did not find a two-wayinteraction between leader gender and perceptions ofcohesion on intellectual stimulation (�= 0022, p = 0071)or individualized consideration (�= −0064, p = 0038).

DiscussionOur leader-in-social-network theory suggests that whenindividuals perceive mismatches between expectationsrelating to the social network context and expectationsrelating to the gender of the leader, individuals willmake gender-biased attributions of charismatic leader-ship. For attributions concerning women leaders, we Table

3Study3:

Mea

ns,

StandardDev

iations,

andCorrelations

Varia

ble

Mea

nSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1Cha

risma

4099

1017

2Pe

rceive

dce

ntralization

2093

1012

−00

17∗

3Pe

rceive

dco

hesion

3080

1014

0036

∗∗

−00

21∗∗

4Le

ader

gend

era

0041

0049

−00

0800

02−

0005

5Pe

rceive

dce

ntralization

×00

0200

62−

0015

†00

61∗∗∗

−00

0900

02Le

ader

gend

er6

Perceive

dco

hesion

×−

0002

0070

0024

∗∗

−00

0800

69∗∗∗

−00

04−

0013

Lead

erge

nder

7Le

ader

age

4008

412

058

−00

1000

12−

0019

∗00

06−

0011

0022

∗∗

8Le

ader

ethn

icity

b00

1700

3800

0600

10−

0005

0010

0004

0005

−00

30∗∗

9Le

ader

centrality

2029

1058

0007

−00

0500

04−

0001

−00

03−

0005

0013

−00

0910

Team

size

5059

5022

0002

−00

03−

0004

−00

1100

02−

0005

0001

−00

0500

0911

Team

gend

erratio

0068

1048

−00

0100

0300

03−

0062

∗∗∗

−00

0800

07−

0005

0002

0016

∗00

0212

Team

ethn

icity

varia

bility

0064

0031

−00

10−

0001

0005

−00

0700

0100

0200

10∗

−00

51−

0025

∗∗

−00

11−

0006

13Te

amag

eva

riability

7071

4074

−00

02−

0008

−00

23∗∗

0011

0003

−00

23∗∗

0053

−00

0700

14†

−00

0200

0400

0214

Res

pond

entg

ende

ra00

4900

5000

1000

03−

0010

0021

∗00

18∗

−00

1000

15†

−00

0700

01−

0004

−00

61∗∗

0001

−00

0315

Res

pond

entc

entra

lity

3031

1023

0035

∗∗∗

−00

21∗∗

0013

−00

07−

0007

0003

−00

0900

05−

0042

∗∗∗

0005

−00

0600

07−

0013

0017

∗

a0

=m

an,1

=w

oman

.b0

=w

hite

,1=

othe

r.†p<

0010

;∗p<

0005

;∗∗p<

0001

;∗∗∗p<

0000

1(tw

o-ta

iled

test

s).

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1221

Table 4 Study 3: Effects of Leader Gender and Perceived Social Network Structure on Attributions of Charismatic Leadership

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Intercept 3021∗∗∗ 3031∗∗∗ 3001∗∗∗ 3027∗∗∗ 3009∗∗∗ 3025∗∗∗

400765 400775 400725 400855 400845 400855

Control variablesLeader ethnicity −0011 0023 1038 1058 0055 1069

440485 440495 440235 440275 440255 440335Leader age −0017 −0018 −0012 −0013 −0018 −0012

400145 400145 400135 400135 400135 400135Leader centrality 2092∗∗∗ 2078∗∗ 2032∗ 2029∗ 2025∗ 2029∗

410035 410035 400975 400995 400975 400995Team size −0003 −0001 0005 0002 0004 0002

400265 400265 400255 400265 400255 400265Team gender ratio 3081 3058 5021 2079 3092 2075

450235 450235 440935 460545 460785 460575Team ethnicity variability −2045 −2013 −3070 −3079 −4029 −3072

450435 450435 450115 460545 45015 450205Team age variability 0019 0018 0041 0042 0060† 0042

400365 400365 400345 400345 400355 400345Respondent gender 2047 2076 4071 4027 6008† 4028

430605 430615 430435 430555 430605 430565Respondent’s perceived centrality 6056∗∗∗ 6019∗∗∗ 5054∗∗∗ 5036∗∗∗ 5053∗∗∗ 5037∗∗∗

410245 410295 410195 410265 410255 410275Predictor variables

Leader gender −2002 −1082 −2004430625 430585 430635

Perceived centralization −1046 −0025 1094 −0027410435 410395 410725 410405

Perceived cohesion 5079∗∗∗ 5071∗∗∗ 5093∗∗∗ 5079∗∗∗

410345 410385 410375 410835

Two-way interactionsLeader gender×Perceived centralization −5093∗

420815Leader gender×Perceived cohesion 0049

420615

R2 0020∗∗∗ 0015∗∗∗ 0024∗∗∗ 0024∗∗∗ 0026∗∗∗ 0023∗∗∗

Notes. N = 157. Standard errors are in parentheses.†p < 0010; ∗p < 0005; ∗∗p < 0001; ∗∗∗p < 00001 (two-tailed tests).

Figure 4 Study 3: Attributions of Charisma to Men andWomen Leaders in the Context of PerceivedCentralization

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Low centralization High centralization

Attr

ibut

ions

of

char

ism

atic

lead

ersh

ip

MenWomenp = 0.21 p = 0.05

found support for this prediction: even when individualsperceived their networks to be highly cohesive, womenwere still negatively affected by centralization. For menleaders, our findings from Study 3 are less clear giventhe absence of support for the hypothesized negativeeffect of cohesion on charismatic attributions for men.More research is needed, but taken alone, the resultsfrom Study 3 suggest that the prototypical pattern ofmen leaders in centralized networks may be more potentin its effects on attributed charisma than the prototypicalpattern of women leaders in cohesive networks.

General DiscussionIn support of the leader-in-social-network schema per-spective, results across three studies suggest that whenpeople’s expectations concerning team leaders are mis-aligned, people attribute less charisma to leaders. Expec-tations are cued both by the social network context of

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1222 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

work (centralized or cohesive team advice networks) andby the gender of the leader. In support of Hypothesis 1,people saw women as less charismatic than men whencentralized team advice networks cued people’s expec-tations of male status and power. In support of Hypothe-sis 2, people in two of the three studies saw men as lesscharismatic than women when cohesive team advice net-works cued people’s expectations of female caring andcommunality.

Our hypotheses concerned interaction effects betweennetwork structure and leader gender. The inconsistentpattern of main effects across the studies suggests theimportance of taking an interaction approach to under-standing why some leaders are considered more charis-matic than others. In our research we found that theeffects of perceived network properties on attributionsof charismatic leadership were not straightforward butrequired consideration of leader gender in the context ofnetwork structure. It is interesting to note that cohesionwas positively related to charisma attributions in Stud-ies 1 and 3 in which participants reacted to schematicrepresentations of team network structure, whereas cen-tralization was positively to charisma in Study 2, inwhich participants reported on the actual ties linkingteam members to one another. One possible interpre-tation of these findings is that when individuals areallowed to react to “ideal types” of networks, they tendto provide an espoused theory (see Argyris 1993) ofgood leadership as a collective, shared exercise. Butwhen people are anchored to the actual ties they observein their teams, they reveal a more traditional theory-in-use (cf. Argyris 1993), in which good leadership istypified by command-and-control.

Contributions to Theory and ResearchThe research contributions derive from a focus on theeffects of people’s mismatched expectations. Networkcognition research has expanded our knowledge of howpeople think about social networks (Brands 2013). Inparticular, network cognition research has spent decadesexamining bias in patterns of social network perceptions(e.g., Kilduff et al. 2008). But this research has nei-ther theorized nor researched how perceptions of net-work structure affect perceivers’ attributions of qualities(positive or otherwise) to others in the social network.In putting forward theory and empirical research con-cerning mismatched expectations, we move beyond thealmost exclusive focus on patterns of biased perceptionsin the minds of perceivers. We identify leaders withinwork teams as potential victims or beneficiaries of per-ceivers’ expectations that are cued by social networkcontext and targets’ attributes.

Thus we move forward, within the research programof cognitive networks, the idea that social network struc-tures, although facilitating outcomes for some categoriesof people, may adversely affect outcomes for others.

We build on prior research showing that network struc-tures affect people differently depending on people’scharacteristics. Thus, women (compared with men) areless likely to benefit from networks featuring structuralholes (Burt 1992) and may be disadvantaged by networkhomophily (Ibarra 1992). The dynamic interplay of cog-nitive expectations and individual characteristics is onthe frontier of network research (Burt et al. 2013).

A further contribution of our research is to the areaof leadership. First, we advance the cognitive socialnetwork approach to leadership (Balkundi and Kilduff2005) by articulating the ways in which perceptionsof network context and leader gender relate to attribu-tions of charisma to the leader. Prior work has exam-ined how the configuration of ties around leaders affectsothers’ estimations of leader charisma (Balkundi et al.2011). But this prior work assumed that network rolesbenefited leaders regardless of leaders’ individual char-acteristics. We draw on social psychological researchconcerning the ubiquity and potency of gender schemasin evaluating leaders’ behaviors (Eagly and Karau 2002,Eagly et al. 1992) to show that the social network con-text of the perceiver differentially affects attributions ofcharisma to men and women leaders.

In doing so, we raise a question for theory concern-ing gender and leadership. There is a well-documentedassociation between gender stereotypes and agentic-communal orientation (Eagly and Steffen 1984). Whenapplied to leadership, this means that when women enactthe agentic behaviors necessary for leadership, they arepenalized for being insufficiently communal, resulting innegative evaluations of their leadership abilities (Eaglyand Karau 2002). This existing research on gender andleadership has tended to focus on leaders’ behaviors inaccounting for gender bias in leadership. However, ourresearch examines how social interactions that are per-ceived to occur around leaders, regardless of leaders’participation in these exchanges, shape perceptions ofleadership qualities. To the extent that these interactionsare perceived by followers as arising unprompted by theleader, one implication of our findings is that perceptionsof agency and communality arise not only from men’sand women’s behavior but also from the social contextin which those behaviors occur. However, it may be thatleaders are perceived by the followers to be responsiblefor cultivating the social structure in their teams alongcentralized and cohesive dimensions. If this is the case,then our research highlights an important boundary con-dition to the agency penalty normally applied to womenleaders in that it suggests that women can be agentic innetworks as long as they cultivate cohesive and thereforegender appropriate networks. Future research can clarifythese differing interpretations of our findings.

Another contribution of this research is to redress theprevailing consensus that women relative to men aredisadvantaged as leaders. Although much research has

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1223

sought to identify the behaviors of charismatic leaders,little attention has been paid to demographic character-istics such as gender, as noted in a recent review (Walterand Bruch 2009). This oversight is particularly notablegiven that bias against female leaders is a key themein leadership research (Eagly et al. 1992). In our workwe move away from the prevailing consensus to suggestthat gender biases are context dependent and are cued,in part, by the social network structural characteristicsof centralization and cohesion.

Further, in terms of a contribution to leadership re-search, this study underpins the need to disaggregatemultidimensional leadership concepts and study spe-cific leadership dimensions. Our research shows effectsspecifically for charisma, which is one dimension ofthe broader concept of transformational leadership (Bass1999). Because the leader-in-social network schemaengages the charismatic leadership prototype, its effectsare bound to attributions of charisma and leave unaf-fected other (noncharismatic) dimensions of transforma-tional leadership (i.e., individualized consideration, intel-lectual stimulation) as well as transactional leadership,general evaluations of leadership, and ratings of the rela-tionship quality between the leader and the follower.Even though the customary pattern is to downplay dif-ferences between charismatic leadership and transforma-tional leadership (van Knippenberg and Sitkin 2013), ourresearch shows that charismatic leadership, because ofits unique roots in attributions of charisma, should not beequated with transformational leadership but be studiedas a specific construct in its own right.

Limitations and Future ResearchAcross three studies we mandated that respondents (re-cruited exclusively from online panels) had work expe-rience with full- or part-time jobs in the United States.Data collected through online panels are of similar orbetter quality than data collected from respondents inspecific contexts such as students at a university oremployees of a single company (Buhrmester et al. 2011).Data from multiple sources improve external validity.But because our respondents worked in a wide rangeof jobs, industries, and organizations, we were unableto estimate the effects of organizational culture on theirattributions of leadership. It is likely that some orga-nizations (relative to others) feature cultures conduciveto women leaders. Future research could examine howorganizational culture itself represents a rich repositoryof cognitive expectations affecting how men and womenleaders are perceived.

Cognitive social network research typically examinesthe relationship between perceived networks and actualnetworks (e.g., Kilduff et al. 2008). In our Studies 2and 3, we were unable to confirm the veracity of reportsof network structure. However, perceptions of socialnetworks represent phenomena of interest in their own

right (Krackhardt 1987), given that if people perceivesituations as real, then these situations have real con-sequences (Thomas and Thomas 1928). Our researchfocused on outcomes of the mismatch between expec-tations cued by perceived network structure and expec-tations cued by leader gender. Future research couldexamine whether the effects we describe are rooted inthe actual press of network structure or whether theseeffects are mainly the result of biased social networkperceptions.

Supplemental MaterialSupplemental material to this paper is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0965.

Endnotes1The manipulations are available as supplemental material tothis paper.2Our hypotheses concern networks that show distinct patternsof perceived centralization and cohesion. Accordingly, we plot-ted interactions at 1.5 standard deviations from the mean toreflect networks that are distinctly centralized or cohesive (inline with pertinent recommendations; see Preacher 2014).3Robustness checks indicated results were unaffected by theorder in which the materials were presented.4The measures are available as supplemental material to thispaper.

ReferencesAcker J (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered orga-

nizations. Gender Soc. 4(2):139–158.Argyris C (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Bar-

riers to Organizational Change (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Aries E (1976) Interaction patterns and themes of male, female, and

mixed groups. Small Group Res. 7(1):7–18.Avolio BJ, Yammarino FJ (1990) Operationalizing charismatic lead-

ership using a levels-of-analysis framework. Leadership Quart.1(3):193–208.

Baldwin MW (1992) Relational schemas and the processing of socialinformation. Psych. Bull. 112(3):461–484.

Bales RF, Slater PE (1955) Role differentiation in small decision-making groups. Parsons T, Bales RF, eds. Family, Socialization,and Interaction Process (Free Press, Glencoe, IL), 259–306.

Balkundi P, Kilduff M (2005) The ties that lead: A social networkapproach to leadership. Leadership Quart. 16(6):941–961.

Balkundi P, Kilduff M, Hanison DA (2011) Centrality and charisma:Comparing how leader networks and attributions affect team per-formance. J. Appl. Psych. 96(6):1209–1222.

Bass BM (1985) Leadership: Good, better, best. Organ. Dynam.13(3):26–40.

Bass BM (1999) Two decades of research and development in trans-formational leadership. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psych. 8(1):9–32.

Beal DJ, Cohen RR, Burke MJ, McLendon CL (2003) Cohesion andperformance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of constructrelations. J. Appl. Psych. 88(6):989–1004.

Brands RA (2013) Cognitive social structures in social networkresearch: A review. J. Organ. Behav. 34(S1):S82–S103.

Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s MechanicalTurk. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network Schema1224 Organization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS

Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition(Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

Burt RS, Kilduff M, Tasselli S (2013) Social network analysis:Foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Rev. Psych.64(1):527–547.

Cantor N, Mischel W (1979) Prototypes in person perception.Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 12 (Academic Press, New York), 3–52.

Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital.Amer. J. Sociol. 94(Supplement):S95–S120.

Conger JA, Kanungo RN (1987) Toward a behavioral theory of charis-matic leadership in organizational settings. Acad. ManagementRev. 12(4):637–647.

Conger JA, Kanungo RN, Menon ST (2000) Charismatic leadershipand follower effects. J. Organ. Behav. 21(7):747–767.

Diekman AB, Goodfriend W, Goodwin S (2004) Dynamic stereotypesof power: Perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies.Sex Roles 50(3–4):201–215.

Eagly AH, Carli LL (2003) The female leadership advantage: Anevaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quart. 14(6):807–834.

Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice towardfemale leaders. Psych. Rev. 109(3):573–598.

Eagly AH, Steffen VJ (1984) Gender stereotypes stem from the dis-tribution of women and men into social roles. J. Personality Soc.Psych. 46(4):735–754.

Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Makhijani MG (1995) Gender and the effec-tiveness of leaders. Psych. Bull. 117(1):125–145.

Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the eval-uation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psych. Bull. 111(1):3–22.

Freeman LC (1978–1979) Centrality in social networks conceptualclarification. Soc. Networks 1(3):215–239.

Freeman LC, Romney AK, Freeman SC (1987) Cognitive struc-ture and informant accuracy. Amer. Anthropologist 89(2):310–325.

Giessner SR, van Knippenberg D (2008) License to fail: Goal defi-nition, leader group protoypicality, and perceptions of leadershipeffectiveness after leader failure. Organ. Behav. Human DecisionProcesses 105(1):14–35.

Graen GB, Uhl-Bien M (1995) Relationship-based approach to lead-ership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theoryof leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domainperspective. Leadership Quart. 6(2):219–247.

Howell JM, Shamir B (2005) The role of followers in the charismaticleadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Acad.Management Rev. 30(1):96–112.

Ibarra H (1992) Homophily and differential returns: Sex differencesin network structure and access in an advertising firm. Admin.Sci. Quart. 37(3):422–447.

Janicik GA, Larrick RP (2005) Social network schemas and thelearning of incomplete networks. J. Personality Soc. Psych.88(2):348–364.

Jung DI, Avolio BJ (2000) Opening the black box: An experimentalinvestigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congru-ence on transformational and transactional leadership. J. Organ.Behav. 21(8):949–964.

Kilduff M, Crossland C, Tsai W, Krackhardt D (2008) Organi-zational network perceptions versus reality: A small worldafter all? Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 107(1):15–28.

Krackhardt D (1987) Cognitive social structures. Soc. Networks9(2):109–134.

Labianca G, Brass DJ, Gray B (1998) Social networks and perceptionsof intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and thirdparties. Acad. Management J. 41(1):55–67.

Lord RG (2005) Implicit leadership theory. Schyns B, Meindl JR,eds. Implicit Leadership Theories (Information Age Publishing,Charlotte, NC), ix–xiv.

Lord RG, Emrich CG (2000) Thinking outside the box by lookinginside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadershipresearch. Leadership Quart. 11(4):551–579.

Lord RG, Foti RJ (1986) Schema theories, information processing,and organizational behavior. Sims HP Jr, Gioia DA, eds. TheThinking Organization (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 20–48.

Lord RG, Maher KJ (1994) Leadership and Information Process-ing: Linking Perceptions and Organizational Performance (Rout-ledge, New York).

Lord RG, Foti RJ, De Vader CL (1984) A test of leadership cat-egorization theory: Internal structure, information processing,and leadership perceptions. Organ. Behav. Human Performance34(3):343–378.

Lord RG, Brown DJ, Harvey JL, Hall RJ (2001) Contextual con-straints on prototype generation and their multilevel conse-quences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quart. 12(3):311–338.

Maccoby EE (1990) Gender and relationships: A developmentalaccount. Amer. Psychologist 45(4):513–520.

Magee JC, Galinsky AD (2008) Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcingnature of power and status. Acad. Management Ann. 2:351–398.

Meeker BF, Weitzel-O’Neill PA (1977) Sex roles and interper-sonal behavior in task-oriented groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 42(1):91–105.

Mehra A, Borgatti SP, Soltis S, Floyd T, Ofem B, Halgin DS, Lopez-Kidwell V (2014) Imaginary worlds: Using visual network scalesto capture perceptions of social networks. Brass DJ, LabiancaG, Mehra A, Halgin DS, Borgatti SP, eds. Contemporary Per-spectives on Organizational Social Networks (Emerald GroupPublishing, Bingley, UK), 315–336.

Moskowitz DS, Suh EJ, Desaulniers J (1994) Situational influenceson gender differences in agency and communion. J. PersonalitySoc. Psych. 66(4):753–761.

Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Rudman LA (2010) When men breakthe gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modestmen. Psych. Men Masculinity 11(2):140–151.

Neisser U (1976) Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implica-tions of Cognitive Psychology (W. H. Freeman and Company,New York).

Nye JL, Forsyth DR (1991) The effects of prototype-based biases onleadership appraisals: A test of leadership categorization theory.Small Group Res. 22(3):360–379.

Pastor JC, Mayo M, Shamir B (2007) Adding fuel to fire: The impactof followers’ arousal on ratings of charisma. J. Appl. Psych.92(6):1584–1596.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, Fetter R (1990) Trans-formational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trustin leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Leadership Quart. 1(2):107–142.

Preacher K (2014) Interaction effects in MLR, LCA, and MLM.Accessed October 20, 2014, http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/interactions.htm.

Prentice DA, Carranza E (2002) What women and men should be,shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: Thecontents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psych. Women Quart.26(4):269–281.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Brands, Menges, and Kilduff: The Leader-in-Social-Network SchemaOrganization Science 26(4), pp. 1210–1225, © 2015 INFORMS 1225

Rosette AS, Tost LP (2010) Agentic women and communal lead-ership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top womenleaders. J. Appl. Psych. 95(2):221–235.

Rosette AS, Leonardelli GJ, Phillips KW (2008) The white stan-dard: Racial bias in leader categorization. J. Appl. Psych. 93(4):758–777.

Schank RC, Abelson RP (1977) Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Un-derstanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).

Schein VE (1973) The relationship between sex role stereotypesand requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psych. 57(2):95–100.

Sczesny S (2005) Gender stereotypes and implicit leadership theories.Schyns B, Meindl JR, eds. Implicit Leadership Theories (Infor-mation Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC), 159–172.

Shamir B (1992) Attribution of influence and charisma to theleader: The romance of leadership revisited. J. Appl. Soc. Psych.22(5):386–407.

Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ (1999) Multilevel Analyses: An Introductionto Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (Sage, London).

Sparrowe RT, Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML (2001) Social net-works and the performance of individuals and groups. Acad.Management J. 44(2):316–325.

Thomas WI, Thomas DS (1928) The Child in America: BehaviorProblems and Programs (Alfred A. Knopf, New York).

van Knippenberg D, Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment ofcharismatic-transformational leadership research: Back to thedrawing board? Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):1–60.

Walter F, Bruch H (2009) An affective events model of charis-matic leadership behavior: A review, theoretical integration, andresearch agenda. J. Management 35(6):1428–1452.

Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods andApplications (Cambridge University Press, New York).

Weber M (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization(Oxford University Press, New York).

Zitek EM, Tiedens LZ (2012) The fluency of social hierarchy: Theease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered,learned, and liked. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 102(1):98–115.

Raina A. Brands is an assistant professor in organizationalbehavior at London Business School. She received her Ph.D.from the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses onsocial networks and cognitions and their consequences for thecareers of women.

Jochen I. Menges is a professor of leadership and humanresource management at WHU–Otto Beisheim School of Man-agement. He obtained his doctoral degree from the Universityof St. Gallen. His research focuses on social dynamics betweenleaders and followers and on emotions in organizations.

Martin Kilduff is a professor of organizational behavior inthe Department of Management Science and Innovation, Uni-versity College London. He received his Ph.D. from CornellUniversity. His research focuses on the microfoundations andconsequences of individuals’ social networks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense. You are free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this work, but youmust attribute this work as “Organization Science. Copyright 2015 INFORMS.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0965, used under a Creative CommonsAttribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.”

Dow

nloa

ded

from

info

rms.

org

by [

212.

184.

196.

203]

on

22 S

epte

mbe

r 20

15, a

t 04:

37 .

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y, a

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.