Seite - (000240) - in Knowledge and Networks

235 successful in leadership tournaments. Different trajectories and behaviors may be associated with different personality types. Indeed, high self-monitors’ pursuit of informal leadership may be related to costs as well as benefits. Thus, evidence shows that high self-monitors (relative to low self-monitors) are more susceptible to role conflict in the workplace (Mehra & Schenkel, 2008) and are more likely to accept a range of responsibilities that nega- tively affect their workplace performance (Mehra et al., 2001). To the extent that the high self-monitors’ attitudes and behaviors are driven by external cues (an orienta- tion that may be conducive to getting ahead in organizational contexts), the high self-monitors (relative to the low self-monitors) may be susceptible to influences in the environment such as prompts to eat too much food leading to obesity (Younger & Pliner, 1976). It is necessary to avoid thinking that one self-monitoring orienta- tion is inevitably superior to the other. The current research is consistent with other research showing self-monitoring to be associated with leader emergence, but questions remain concerning how indi- viduals different in self-monitoring orientation build bases of trust among col- leagues and precisely what kinds of advice high and low self-monitors provide. Previous research has suggested that high and low self-monitors approach relation- ship building with different orientations. High self-monitors are concerned to proj- ect positive images of themselves and to suppress information that might trigger negative inferences (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). High self-monitors are also moti- vated to produce social interactions that are successful (Ickes et al., 2006) and that promote social status (Flynn et al., 2006). By contrast, low self-monitors generate expressive behavior from inner affective states and attitudes (Snyder, 1979) and pay less attention to impression management (Turnley & Bolino, 2001). Low self- monitors may be strongly motivated to produce social interactions that reflect their genuine underlying values (Ickes et al., 2006). Thus, future research could investigate whether high self-monitors tend to build trusting relationships on the basis of diplomatic impression management, whereas low self-monitors tend to build such relationships on the basis of a match between strongly held values. Further, future research could investigate whether the advice provided by high self- monitors tends to reflect a status-seeking orientation whereas the advice provided by low self- monitors tends to reflect a sticking-up-for-principles orientation. Limitations The research is limited in that it draws from cross-sectional data within a single organization. Confidence in the results is enhanced to the extent that they contribute to a consistent pattern that includes laboratory experiments and field studies showing self-monitoring effects on leader emergence (see the review by Day et al., 2002). Given that the culture of the focal organization explicitly valued coop- eration, this could limit generalizability of the findings with respect to trust broker- age. Common method bias is always a concern in survey research. We have endeavored to reduce such concern by measuring leadership emergence and advice centrality as counts of nominations by others whereas self-monitoring orientation was based on a well-established self-report instrument. A further limitation of the 11 Brokering Trust to Enhance Leadership