Grounded in the relational view of leadership, this dissertation explores the dynamics of the leader/follower relationship in the context of a collective using a social networks approach. Specifically, I build on DeRue and Ashford’s (2010) work that focuses on dynamic, socially constructed leadership relationships within a dyad to focus on such relationships within a collective. In doing so, I conceptualize collective leader endorsement – receiving a grant of leader identity from a collective of followers – and examine the implications of collective leader endorsement. As a dynamic relationship, collective leader endorsement can change as individuals give and receive grants of leader identity. I draw on relational models of leadership theory and appraisal theory to examine how contextual situations (i.e., identity jolts) prompt change in collective leader endorsement at the network level and how such change can influence individual functioning at the individual level. As a socially constructed relationship, collective leader endorsement creates the potential for disagreement among members of the collective regarding grants of leader identity. I draw on social comparison theory and appraisal theory to suggest that agreement (or lack thereof) can influence the individual’s perceived demands and overall functioning within the collective. Using data from 106 individuals on a collegiate football team in the United States over 12 consecutive weeks, I find significant changes in collective leader endorsement and the associated leadership network over the course of the season. Specifically, I find that challenging situations prompted a reevaluation of leader identities and shifted the patterns within the leadership network. In addition, change in an individual’s level of collective leader endorsement prompted additional perceived demands and lowered well-being. This relationship was attenuated if the individual had a supportive coach to help him cope with additional leadership demands. Finally, (lack of) agreement regarding the individual’s leader identity also influenced the individual’s well-being. Specifically, the individual experienced enhanced perceived demands (and associated lower well-being) if the individual’s perception of who should receive grants of leader identity was incongruent with the collective’s perception of collective leader endorsement.

Employees are directly involved in work tasks and processes which are necessary to accomplish unit or organizational goals, and accordingly, they may become aware of key mistakes, slips, and failures that are unbeknownst to the leader or supervisor responsible for the work unit or organization. Given that errors or deviations in work tasks or processes can have far-reaching effects within the organization, it may be essential for employees to share bad news with their leader or supervisor so that steps can be taken to address the issue or ameliorate negative consequences. However, although employees' sharing of bad news may be important to the organization and should be encouraged, supervisors may respond to the messenger in ways that discourage the behavior. Unfortunately, we lack an explanation of why and under what conditions supervisors respond positively or negatively to employees who share bad news. Thus, the purpose of this dissertation is to address this gap in our understanding. I draw from social exchange theory and the transactional theory of stress to develop a conceptual model of sharing bad news. I suggest that sharing bad news can be cast as a transaction between employees and supervisors that is mediated by supervisors’ appraisals of employees’ sharing the message. The quality of the relationship between an employee and supervisor, or leader-member exchange (LMX), is strengthened when supervisors appraise the sharing of bad news as challenging, or potentially rewarding; however, LMX is weakened when supervisors appraise the sharing of bad news as hindering, or potential harmful. In turn, LMX influences supervisor responses to the sharing of bad news in the form of evaluations of the employee’s effectiveness. In addition to these main effects, I also consider how aspects of the message delivery, such as the timeliness with which messages are conveyed and extent to which employees incorporate solutions when they share bad news, can influence supervisor appraisals of sharing bad news. Finally, I suggest that the extent to which the messenger is responsible for the bad news moderates the relationships between appraisals of sharing bad news and LMX. I test this model in three studies.

I develop and test theoretical hypotheses for how employees' authenticity at work influences their motivational, relational, and effectiveness outcomes. These hypotheses are grounded in the idea that when individuals feel they display their true selves at work, they can more fully employ their physical, cognitive and emotional energies in their work roles, which in turn leads to higher levels of employee effectiveness (e.g., task performance, perceived value to the organization, and promotability). In addition to this personal motivational process, individuals who are more authentic also develop high-quality relationships with their coworkers, thereby receiving more instrumental support and minimizing the antagonistic encounters they have with their colleagues. Both types of coworker interactions should, in turn, also influence the focal individual's effectiveness at work. Finally, I hypothesize that the relationships between authenticity and these relational and effectiveness outcomes are moderated by certain personality traits, such that when an individual is highly narcissistic, has very low self-esteem, or has strongly held values or beliefs generally perceived to be negative or deviant, the relationships change: authenticity's positive influence on coworker instrumental support becomes less positive, and authenticity's negative influence on coworker incivility becomes less negative. These moderation effects are expected for employee effectiveness as well. The sample used to test these hypotheses consisted of 102 employees and their 16 supervisors from two private companies headquartered in the Southwest United States. Authenticity was found to be positively associated with employee engagement, coworker instrumental support, and employee effectiveness, and negatively associated with coworker incivility. Once other factors were controlled for, significant relationships remained with employee engagement and coworker support. Contrary to expectations, neither engagement nor coworker interactions mediated the authenticity-employee effectiveness relationship. A dark side of authenticity was found for two of the three personality traits: self-esteem moderated the relationship between authenticity and coworker instrumental support, such that when self-esteem was low, the relationship between authenticity and coworker support was significantly weaker. Additionally, narcissism moderated the relationship between authenticity and employee effectiveness such that when narcissism was low, the relationship between authenticity and effectiveness was positive, but when narcissism was high, the relationship became negative.

In my dissertation, I develop a theoretical model that explains how leaders' daily work demands and recovery affect their leadership behaviors. In a departure from the trait approach of leadership which suggests that leaders tend to behave in certain ways that are determined by their heritable characteristics such as personality and intelligence (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2002), and from the contingency approach that suggests leaders behave in ways that are most suitable to the situation based on the needs of followers and the demands of their tasks (e.g., House, 1971), this dissertation draws from the transactional theory of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and positions the stressful demands that leaders experience at work as important determinants of their leadership behaviors. Specifically, I propose that leaders' daily challenge demands (e.g., workload, time pressure, responsibilities) are positively related to job engagement whereas their daily hindrance demands (e.g., role ambiguity, office politics, and hassles) are negatively related to engagement. Engagement, in turn, is positively related to transformational and transactional leadership and negatively related to laissez-faire leadership and abusive supervision. Meanwhile, both challenge and hindrance demands are positively related to strain, which is negatively related to transformational and transactional leadership, and is positively related to laissez-faire leadership and abusive supervision. In addition, leaders' daily after-work recovery experience influences the mediating roles of engagement and strain in the relationships between work demands and leadership behaviors. Specifically, daily recovery moderates both the first stage (i.e., the linkages between work demands and engagement and strain) and the second stage (i.e., the linkages between engagement and strain and leadership behaviors) of the mediation. I test this two-level dual-stage moderated mediation model using a two-week experience sampling design. The sample consists of 26 supervisors and 73 employees who directly report to these supervisors from the flood control district of a metropolitan county in the Southwest United States. Results suggest that leaders' daily challenge demands have a positive influence on transformational leadership attributable to engagement, a negative influence on abusive supervision attributable to engagement, and a positive influence on abusive supervision attributable to strain. Leaders' daily hindrance demands, in contrast, have a positive influence on abusive supervision attributable to strain. In addition, leaders' daily recovery moderates the relationship between strain and laissez-faire leadership so that hindrance demands have a positive influence on laissez-faire leadership when the individual is poorly recovered. Leaders' daily recovery also moderates the relationship between strain and abusive supervision so that hindrance demands have a stronger positive influence on abusive supervision through strain when the individual is poorly recovered.