Page - (000239) - in Knowledge and Networks

234 The current study contributes to brokerage theory and research (e.g., Burt, 2005) an emphasis on the ways in which different kinds of people can take differential advantage of brokerage positions. Being trusted by people who do not trust each other has been theorized in prior work to provide both the opportunity and the moti- vation for brokerage (Burt, 1992, pp. 34–35). However, we show that, with respect to being recognized by their peers as leaders, high self-monitors, relative to low self-monitors, are more likely to benefit from the occupation of a structurally advan- tageous network position. The occupation of a structurally advantageous position, therefore, may well be more advantageous for some (i.e., high self-monitors) rela- tive to others (i.e., low self-monitors). The incorporation of theoretically relevant personality differences can enhance the predictive and explanatory power of net- work theory. The paper addresses the controversy in the self-monitoring literature concerning the kind of leadership that high self-monitors are likely to bring to real organiza- tions. From our research, we show that high self-monitors, relative to low self- monitors, are more central in the provision of advice to colleagues. As prior work has suggested (Ickes, Holloway, Stinson, & Hoodenpyle, 2006), high self-monitors work hard to ensure that social interactions are successful. In the present research this hard work involves being active in helping others with work-related matters. Leadership emergence, therefore, is not just a matter of impression management, as some critics of the self- monitoring and leadership relationship have suggested. Future Research It seems clear that high self-monitors emerge as informal leaders in organizations (Day et al., 2002). But we still do not fully understand the differences between high and low self-monitoring styles of leadership. If we assume that both low and high self-monitors can develop over time as leaders in the eyes of others (as research shows—Tate, 2008), then the interesting question becomes what leadership behav- iors differentiate the two self-monitoring orientations. Brokerage across social divides may appeal to the interests and abilities of high self-monitors whereas strengthening connections among members of a team may appeal to the interests and abilities of low self-monitors (Oh & Kilduff, 2008). Some people may be rec- ognized as leaders because of their institutional loyalty, their retention of the ser- vices of trusted subordinates over long periods of time, and their “straight talking.” These would seem to be leadership characteristics associated with low self- monitoring. Other people may be recognized as leaders because of their flexibility in moving from one situation to another, their appeal to different types of people, and their reputation for saying the right thing at the right time. These would seem to be leadership characteristics associated with high self-monitoring. Thus, future research can move beyond the expectation that one type of personality will emerge M. Kilduff et al.