Impression Management and Leadership Emergence in Virtual Settings:The Role of Gender and Media

This paper describes a theoretical model that articulates how members of virtual teams engage in various impression management behaviors to influence their peers' assessment of them as leaders. Given that previous research has indicated that men and women engage in different impression management behaviors and that settings differ with respect to the degree of technological capabilities, our model includes these nuances. Specifically, we adapted the literature associated with impression management to investigate: (a) the efficacy of two key impression management behaviors-self promotion (an aggressive strategy) and supplication (a passive strategy)-that males and females engage in, in their quest to be perceived as leaders by members of their virtual team; (b) whether the extent of different technological capabilities affects this relationship; and (c) whether the strength of the aforementioned relationship changes over time. Our theoretical model offers three interesting implications: First, successful impression management strategies (i.e., those that help establish leadership) in very virtual settings are likely to differ from those in less virtual settings. Second, initial impressions are presumed to matter. Once impressions are formed they are unlikely to change in the short term. They may change over the longer term, as groups build a history of interactions and performance, but those changes are likely to be slow. Third, greater use of technological capabilities, we argue, offers minority members (women, typically) the freedom to break out of gender-stereotypical impression management strategies and establish themselves as leaders without facing potential backlashes (in contrast to settings that are less virtual).

[1]  Rebecca Jestice,et al.  Team collaboration in virtual worlds , 2007, DATB.

[2]  John E. Sawyer,et al.  Virtualness and Knowledge in Teams: Managing the Love Triangle of Organizations, Individuals, and Information Technology , 2003, MIS Q..

[3]  Gregory B. Northcraft,et al.  Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge , 1990 .

[4]  Stephanie Watts,et al.  Straight Talk: Delivering Bad News through Electronic Communication , 1999, Inf. Syst. Res..

[5]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality: The Effects of , 2022 .

[6]  Cecily D. Cooper Just Joking Around? Employee Humor Expression As An Ingratiatory Behavior , 2005 .

[7]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Impression Management 2.0 , 2008, J. Media Psychol. Theor. Methods Appl..

[8]  C. Ridgeway,et al.  Gender, Status, and Leadership , 2001 .

[9]  M. Bolino,et al.  Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: the use of intimidation in an organizational setting , 2003 .

[10]  J. Nemiro The Creative Process in Virtual Teams , 2002 .

[11]  K. M. Kacmar,et al.  A Cybernetic Model of Impression Management Processes in Organizations , 1997 .

[12]  J. Walther Computer-Mediated Communication , 1996 .

[13]  A. Pescosolido,et al.  Informal Leaders and the Development of Group Efficacy , 2001 .

[14]  Gerald R. Ferris,et al.  Influence tactics and work outcomes: a meta‐analysis , 2003 .

[15]  Elizabeth J. Rozell,et al.  The Effects Of Leader Impression Management On Group Perceptions Of Cohesion, Consensus, And Communication , 2003 .

[16]  John J. Sosik,et al.  Impression Management Strategies and Performance in Information Technology Consulting , 2003 .

[17]  S. Karau,et al.  Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. , 2002, Psychological review.

[18]  Barbara A. Ritter,et al.  Gender Differences in Leader Emergence Persist Even for Dominant Women: An Updated Confirmation of Role Congruity Theory1 , 2004 .

[19]  William L. Gardner,et al.  Valuing Women in Management , 1994 .

[20]  A. Pescosolido Emergent leaders as managers of group emotion , 2002 .

[21]  Traci Carte,et al.  Gender, Media and Leader Emergence: Examining the Impression Management Strategies of Men and Women in Different Settings , 2008, AMCIS.

[22]  G. Buckle Some Outcomes of Pressure, Ingratiation, and Rational Persuasion Used With Peers in the Workplace1 , 2003 .

[23]  E. Goffman The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , 1959 .

[24]  Rosanna E. Guadagno,et al.  Gender Differences in Impression Management in Organizations: A Qualitative Review , 2007 .

[25]  W. Gardner,et al.  The Impression Management Strategies Associated with Transformational Leadership at the World-Class Level , 1998 .

[26]  Susan Vinnicombe,et al.  Gender and Impression Management: Playing the Promotion Game , 2002 .

[27]  Hollenbeck,et al.  Decision Accuracy in Computer-Mediated versus Face-to-Face Decision-Making Teams. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[28]  Bruce J. Avolio,et al.  The Charismatic Relationship: A Dramaturgical Perspective , 1998 .

[29]  D. Staples,et al.  The Effects of Cultural Diversity in Virtual Teams Versus Face-to-Face Teams , 2006 .

[30]  Joseph B. Walther,et al.  Perceived Behaviors of Emergent and Assigned Leaders in Virtual Groups , 2007, Int. J. e Collab..

[31]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Emergent leadership in virtual teams: what do emergent leaders do? , 2004, Inf. Organ..

[32]  Carol Watson,et al.  The Role of Task-Related Behavior in the Emergence of Leaders , 2004 .

[33]  Efrat Elron,et al.  Influence and Political Processes in Cyberspace , 2006 .

[34]  Laurie A. Rudman,et al.  Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[35]  M. Neubert,et al.  Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence , 2004 .

[36]  A. Eagly Female Leadership Advantage and Disadvantage: Resolving the Contradictions , 2007 .

[37]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior , 2000, MIS Q..

[38]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An Extension to the Technology Acceptance Model , 1997, MIS Q..

[39]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  Gender and the emergence of leaders : a meta-analysis , 1991 .

[40]  M. Lind The gender impact of temporary virtual work groups , 1999 .

[41]  J. Berger Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-States Approach , 1976 .

[42]  Wei-Chi Tsai,et al.  Exploring Boundaries of the Effects of Applicant Impression Management Tactics in Job Interviews , 2005 .

[43]  A. Seers,et al.  Putting a good face on impression management: Team citizenship and team satisfaction. , 2008 .

[44]  Traci Carte,et al.  A Capabilities-Based Theory of Technology Deployment in Diverse Teams: Leapfrogging the Pitfalls of Diversity and Leveraging Its Potential with Collaborative Technology , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[45]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  Emergence of leaders in virtual teams: what matters? , 2002, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[46]  M. Bolino,et al.  Achieving desired images while avoiding undesired images: exploring the role of self-monitoring in impression management. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[47]  Marc-David L. Seidel,et al.  Motivation and Opportunity: The Role of Remote Work, Demographic Dissimilarity, and Social Network Centrality in Impression Management , 2005 .

[48]  Robert Heckman,et al.  Patterns of Emergent Leadership in Virtual Teams , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.