Seite - (000228) - in Knowledge and Networks

223 when two unacquainted people of the same sex find themselves in a waiting room together, those individuals who are higher in self-monitoring tend to speak first and to initiate more frequent conversations (Ickes & Barnes, 1977). The high self- monitors tend to “take the pulse of their social surroundings” (Snyder, 1987, p. 33) in tailoring self-expressions to the role demands appropriate to different well- defined situations. In contrast, low self-monitors tend to “march to the beat of their own inner drummer” (p. 33) in seeking opportunities to be themselves irrespective of the situation. For example, one study showed that those higher in self-monitoring (relative to those lower in self-monitoring) tended to base their estimates of when they should intervene to help a colleague suffering an epileptic fit on information concerning what others had done in a similar situation (Kulik & Taylor, 1981). Further, managers higher in self-monitoring relative to managers lower in self- monitoring tend to be active in the provision of help to those suffering emotional problems in the workplace (Toegel, Anand, & Kilduff, 2007). Overall, high self- monitoring employees (relative to low self-monitoring employees) tend to be actively engaged in more workplace projects (as measured by the number of formal work relationships they develop) (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). Thus, high self- monitors are likely to be perceived as leaders in organizations in part because of their interest in the attitudes and behaviors of others, whereas low self-monitors are less likely to be perceived as leaders because of their consistent focus on them- selves. High self-monitors, relative to lows, develop an active repertoire of role enactments related to leadership, including motivating others by setting clear goals, showing that efforts will be rewarded, encouraging others to cooperate, being sup- portive, and listening to others’ suggestions (Snyder, 1987, p. 89). The overall pic- ture, then, suggests that high self- monitors, relative to lows, are more likely to be seen to be involved in informal leadership roles given their focus on engagement with and management of coworkers. Hypothesis 1: High self-monitors, relative to low self-monitors, are more likely to be perceived as leaders by organizational members. We want to go beyond this overall prediction to expand our understanding of how self-monitoring relates to informal leadership. A credible argument has been made (Bedeian & Day, 2004) concerning why people in organizations might scorn the leadership of those who appear to flexibly change their opinions. Such inconsis- tency, it has been argued, is incompatible with being perceived to be a leader. Our understanding of self-monitoring theory leads us to a quite different prediction— that high self-monitors, relative to lows, are likely to be central in terms of providing advice to coworkers. Giving Advice About Work-Related Matters Within work organizations the provi- sion of advice is a key aspect of the leadership role (Carter, Haythorn, Shriver, & Lanzetta, 1951; Sorrentino & Field, 1986; see the brief review in Neubert & Taggar, 2004, p. 180). People central in advice networks tend to be those who are also rec- ognized as leaders by their colleagues (Bono & Anderson, 2005). And there are 11 Brokering Trust to Enhance Leadership