Page - (000227) - in Knowledge and Networks

222 see Day & Schleicher, 2006). But these findings have stirred controversy. One skep- tic criticized emergent leadership research as lacking external validity, and point- edly predicted that in real-world contexts the attempted leadership behaviors of high self-monitors would be perceived as “both duplicitous and reprehensible” (Bedeian & Day, 2004, pp. 707–708). From this skeptical perspective, the emergence of high self- monitors as leaders represents ephemeral impression management in the con- text of laboratory experiments. This skepticism toward high self-monitoring leadership includes a rejection of the possibility that high self-monitors might build trust among their colleagues. The chameleon-like high self-monitors with their changeable attitudes and behaviors are said to lack the “right stuff” to be seen as leaders. The impression management skills characteristic of high self-monitors (involving ingratiation and self- promotion—Turnley & Bolino, 2001) are seen by some leadership experts as likely to undermine the trust of colleagues in real organizations by exemplifying inauthen- tic leadership (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005). We address this unresolved controversy concerning high and low self-monitors through an examination of whether and how self-monitoring relates to leadership in organizational contexts. There are three contributions related to leadership emergence. First is the contri- bution to leadership research. We show that flexibility (in terms of a high self- monitoring orientation) is associated with brokering trust relations to win attributions of leadership. Second is the contribution to brokerage theory and research. We pro- vide an answer to the puzzle (raised by Burt, 1992) of why some people more than others benefit from the occupation of a brokerage position in the trust network. Third is the contribution to self-monitoring theory and research. We show that the emergence of high self-monitors as leaders is associated with the provision of advice concerning work-related matters to colleagues rather than being merely impression management. Our research ties in with the long-standing debate concerning the micro-origins of social-structural outcomes. We know that the natural proclivity of individuals is to cluster together in similar groups creating cohesion locally but the possibility of fragmentation at the level of the overall organization (Granovetter, 1973). This para- dox of local cohesion within overall fragmentation is a situation that demands infor- mal leadership to connect across clusters (Burt, 1992). The important question arises as to who is likely to exemplify leadership in connecting across social divides. We seek to provide insight into this question in this paper. Self-Monitoring and Leadership Self-monitoring theory suggests that high self-monitors, relative to lows, are likely to emerge as leaders in work situations not just in terms of promotions (Kilduff & Day, 1994), but also in terms of informal leadership perceptions. High self-monitors, acutely attentive to social cues, take an active, initiatory posture in social interaction whereas low self-monitors generally adopt a non-directive approach. For example, M. Kilduff et al.