Newcomers’ ReactionS to Unfulfilled Leadership Expectations: An Attribution Theory Approach

Journal Pre-proof Newcomers’ ReactionS to Unfulfilled Leadership Expectations: An Attribution Theory Approach

Hagen Seele, Peter Eberl PII:

S0263-2373(20)30028-1

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.007

Reference:

EMJ 1988

To appear in:

European Management Journal

Received Date:

15 August 2018

Accepted Date:

14 February 2020

Please cite this article as: Hagen Seele, Peter Eberl, Newcomers’ ReactionS to Unfulfilled Leadership Expectations: An Attribution Theory Approach, European Management Journal (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2020.02.007

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.

Journal Pre-proof

NEWCOMERS’ REACTIONS TO UNFULFILLED LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS: AN ATTRIBUTION THEORY APPROACH

AUTHORS: Hagen Seelea, Peter Eberlb* a/b

University of Kassel, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Human Resource Management and Organization Studies, Nora-Platiel-Str. 4, 34109 Kassel (Germany)

*

Corresponding author, email: [email protected], phone: +49 561 804 2798

Journal Pre-proof

NEWCOMERS’ REACTIONS TO UNFULFILLED LEADERSHIP EXPECTATIONS: AN ATTRIBUTION THEORY APPROACH

Journal Pre-proof

ABSTRACT This paper examines newcomers’ reactions when facing unfulfilled leadership expectations. Although leaders are ascribed a key role in newcomers’ socialization, very little is known about newcomers’ expectations of leadership and their subsequent behaviors when these expectations are not fulfilled. Against the background of a follower-centered perspective, we develop a differentiated model of newcomers’ leadership attributions. As general attribution theory has recently shown, causal links are not always made in clear-cut ways. Thus, there may be several steps between the attribution and non-attribution of leadership. As our qualitative empirical study in Germany reveals, different unfulfilled leadership expectation types lead to equally different leadership attribution levels, with various behavioral consequences for newcomers. We suggest a dynamic model, starting with investing in a relationship before newcomers choose refusing reactions such as confrontation or withdrawal.

Keywords: Leadership, newcomer behavior, leadership attribution, follower behavior, implicit leadership theory, attribution theory

2

Journal Pre-proof 1 Introduction Newcomers’ socialization is a crucial issue for both practitioners and scholars. As shown in Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, and Tucker’s (2007) meta-analysis, outcomes such as performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment or turnover intentions are strongly influenced by the ways newcomers are socialized. Newer studies also point to effects on creativity and innovation (Harris, Li, Boswell, Zhang, & Xie, 2014). However, it is very challenging to integrate newcomers, since they likely experience a “reality shock” when they first encounter novel work circumstances (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Successful integration into a new organizational context is not automatic, but requires among others active leader support (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Zhaoli, 2013). Thus, effectively leading newcomers is a key task in the socialization process. Despite this acknowledged importance, socialization research has to date paid little attention to either supervisors’ behaviors or the leadership process. As KammeyerMueller et al. (2013) noted, supervisors were seen as a passive source of information, and their behaviors have mainly been subsumed under organizational socialization tactics. Against this background, we address the leadership process in greater detail by looking at newcomers as a specific follower type. Specifically, we seek to establish how new employees react to unfulfilled leadership expectations. A better understanding of these possible reactions may be very helpful to sensitize leaders to newcomers’ behaviors, which in turn leads to the improved socialization of these employees. We take leadership to mean a dynamic social relationship jointly constructed by two parties: a leader and a follower. From this perspective, followers are not passive recipients but active co-producers (Shamir, 2007). The quality of such relationships can differ greatly, as witnessed by the huge amount of research into leader–member exchange (LMX) theory (for an overview, see Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Although LMX theory has paid 3

Journal Pre-proof attention to the leader and follower perspective, the latter remains underexplored (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). We suggest that a follower perspective can especially benefit from an attribution theory approach. A leadership attribution to their supervisor is crucial for newcomers to build a functioning leader–follower relationship. Such an attribution is generally the prerequisite for acknowledging someone as a leader and, simultaneously, to understand oneself as a follower. Without followers, there can be no leadership (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014), and newcomers feel unsupported by their supervisors. Interestingly, current research into both followers and newcomers’ socialization has not considered attributional processes in detail. Thus, we return to Calder’s (1977) follower-centered leadership attribution theory, which explains how followers ascribe leadership to their supervisors. Based on implicit leadership theories (Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Lord, Foti, & De Vader, 1984; Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 1982; Shondrick & Lord, 2010) and perceptions of leader behaviors, followers either do or do not attribute leadership. However, modern attribution research suggests a more differentiated scheme: attribution is not simply about yes or no, but is mostly somewhere in between (Martinez, Martinko, & Ferris, 2012). Further, unfulfilled follower expectations are generally a key factor in organizational research, stimulating for instance research into abusive supervision. Such unfulfilled expectations can lead to follower reactions such as defiance (e.g., Martinko, Harvey, Brees, & Mackey, 2013) or other aggressive workplace behaviors, as well as follower withdrawal or quitting (e.g., Aquino, Tripo, & Bies, 2001; Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006; Douglas et al., 2008). Against this background, we aim for a more sophisticated follower view of leadership attribution concerning unfulfilled leadership expectations. This allows for a better understanding of problematic newcomer behaviors in the leadership-related socialization process. We investigate the experiences of newcomers at their career entry with their

4

Journal Pre-proof supervisors. Newcomers are presumably less biased toward their specific supervisors compared to followers who have long been with the organization. Newcomers’ perceptions of their supervisors have also been proven to strongly impact on their basic behaviors in an organization (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar, Tsui, & Ashforth, 2012). We employed an explorative two-step qualitative research approach based on semi-structured interviews and diaries kept by newcomers. We first sought to establish critical domains of expectations. Second, we focused on events when these expectations were not fulfilled in newcomers’ perceptions. Thus, we could identify moments of leadership attribution and various links to newcomer reactions. In sum, our study contributes to the current literature, in two ways. First, we enrich research into newcomers’ socialization by looking closely at the leadership process. Our attributional model delivers reasons for specific newcomers’ behaviors toward their supervisor during the socialization process. Such knowledge enhances our understanding of newcomers in general and could help leaders to reflect on and eventually change their behaviors. Thus, our model suggests important implications concerning the antecedents of newcomers’ effective socialization. Second, our results will also stimulate follower-centered leadership research. We suggest an extended model of follower-centered leadership attribution, including different attribution levels and types connected to varying follower reactions. In our view, a focus on different contents of expectations of leadership and possible reactions in the case of unfulfilled expectations is a key step toward a more sophisticated approach to leadership attribution. Diverging newcomers’ reactions may explain how followers’ attributions of leadership can be categorized between complete denial and complete attribution of leadership to a supervisor. The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. We start by introducing important theoretical building blocks and address related literature from newcomers’ socialization. From

5

Journal Pre-proof this review, we develop our research questions for our explorative study, referring to newcomers’ leadership expectations, attributions, and subsequent behaviors. We then present our qualitative empirical study, which is based on a leadership prototype comparison and a newcomers’ diary study connected to follow-up semi-structured interviews. In the discussion section, we suggest a model of newcomers’ leadership attributions and corresponding propositions. Finally, we will discuss limitations and practical implications of our study as well as suggestions for further research. 2 Theoretical Background To study expectations of leadership and how their non-fulfillment has attributional consequences and influences newcomer reactions, we need to understand a) which perspective on leadership is applied, b) how leadership expectations are formed, and c) on what bases leadership attributions are made. 2.1 A follower perspective on leadership As noted, there is no leadership without followers. Thus, an understanding of leadership that ignores followers’ active role misses the point. Leadership is not solely a function of hierarchical roles, but must emerge through interaction (Shamir, 2007, 2012). Seen this way, leadership is not tied to formal roles, but to behaviors (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Nonetheless, we point out that the formal roles of supervisor and subordinate are the starting point for the social construction of leadership. Thus, leadership is situated in a specific context and, in the formal roles, takes the social relationship in a certain direction: supervisors are supposed to lead, and subordinates are supposed to follow. For clarity, we emphasize that we are looking at the social construction of leadership and not of followership (i.e. according to Carsten et al., 2010, followers’ perspectives of their roles). In this sense, we go along with a follower-centered approach to leadership (for an overview, see Brown, 2012). Followers are given special attention as causal agents in the leadership 6

Journal Pre-proof process (Shamir, 2007). Research in the field of a follower-centered approach has mainly addressed followers’ attributions to a leader’s contribution to specific outcomes (e.g., Meindl, 1995) or to a leader’s personality, especially charisma (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1987). However, the research has not yet further developed the attribution of leadership. Thus, concerning the question whether or not a supervisor gets a leadership attribution, Calder’s approach from 1977 is still state-of-the-art. Looking closer at the research into newcomers’ socialization, attributions of leadership are not well examined. The studies that have considered leadership during socialization have focused on the ways supervisors affect for instance newcomers’ performance, acceptance, feelings, or motivations (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; Bauer & Green, 1998; Harris et al., 2014; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2009; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar et al., 2012). On the other hand, we only found one study that explicitly addressed the newcomer-supervisor relationship level. Against the background of LMX theory, Sluss and Thompson (2012) contended that newcomers’ perceived relationship quality with their supervisors is a powerful mediating mechanism for organizational socialization. Surprisingly, the newcomer-supervisor relationship has been underexamined in the socialization literature; yet it is crucial. We seek to further develop this research by looking in a differentiated way at how newcomers’ perceptions are formed. We argue that leadership expectations based on implicit leadership theories have a key role in these perceptions and subsequent leadership attributions. 2.2 Implicit leadership theories Scholars in the field have suggested that implicit leadership theories form the groundwork for establishing leadership expectations by providing cognitive schemes such as prototypes of leadership categorization (Lord et al., 1984; Shondrick, Dinh, & Lord, 2010; Shondrick & Lord, 2010). In this respect, implicit leadership theories manifest themselves in specific expectations 7

Journal Pre-proof of leadership. Based on Eden and Leviatan (1975), and referring to Rosch’s (1978) basic principles of cognitive categorization, implicit leadership theories describe how individuals distinguish between leaders and non-leaders, but also between different leader types, by establishing leadership prototypes. These prototypes strongly influence an individual’s understanding and ideas of leadership, and their behavioral expectations of leaders (Lord et al., 1984). Thus, categorizing leadership sharpens an individual’s picture of leadership via leadership prototypes. Generally, the empirical findings suggest that, subconsciously, people tend to automatically distinguish between leaders and followers in an organizational context (e.g., Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013). The clarity of this judgment mainly accrues from a comparison of prototypes (Lord et al., 1982). When the boundaries between different leadership categories are fuzzy, the comparison focuses even more on the prototype, since it represents the category’s core (Medvedeff & Lord, 2007). The prototype marks a certain reference point. From a follower perspective, a potential leader needs to match this point of reference as closely as possible (Quaquebeke, Graf, & Eckloff, 2014). Being influenced by followers’ past experiences, implicit leadership theories and their prototypes are context-sensitive (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Taken together, owing to a follower’s implicit leadership theory, it is a possible consequence that a supervisor is not perceived as a leader (MacDonald, Sulsky, & Brown, 2008; Schyns & Felfe, 2006). Given the fact that the socializations literature has not addressed newcomers’ leadership perceptions in detail, unsurprisingly, there is almost no literature in the field that deals with implicit leadership theories. Only the recent study by Nifadkar (2018) went in this direction. Drawing also on insights of cognition theory, she looked at the development of newcomers’ schemas of supervisors. Different to our view, she did not consider that newcomers usually already have certain leadership prototypes in mind before observing the behaviors of their specific supervisor. Thus, we argue that newcomers do not start with a “blank slate” (Nifadkar,

8

Journal Pre-proof 2018) when they first interact with their supervisor; they already have developed certain general expectations of leadership. Our view goes hand in hand with findings on the fundamental development of prototypes. Rosch (1978) pointed out that initial categorizations develop independently of concrete experience. Concerning leadership, well-known examples of leaders may be used – for instance, of acquaintances or the media – for a first development of leadership prototypes. According to Shondrick et al.’s (2010) findings, parents can also serve as examples of leaders. These initial prototypes are then further differentiated into more general ones via concrete experiences (Lord & Maher, 1993, p. 43). Against this background, newcomers have expectations of their supervisor (e.g., of their competence or trustworthiness), either based on previous work experience or exemplariness. Such prior expectations are crucial for leadership attributions. If they are fulfilled, leadership attributions and corresponding relationship developments should be more or less unproblematic. However, in the case of unfulfilled expectations, the attribution and behaviorrelated consequences are much less clear. Thus, the investigation of unfulfilled expectations may be very helpful to understand certain newcomers’ reactions in the socialization process. Thus, we first need an understanding of attributional processes in the leadership context. 2.3 Leadership attribution theory Drawing on Heider (1958), Kelley (1967, 1972, 1973, 1979) and Weiner (1986; Weiner et al., 1971), the fundamental principles of attribution theory were established to describe how individuals draw causal links to perceived events or others’ behaviors. One potential attribution category is person (Kelley, 1967, 1972, 1973). Person refers to an attribution in which an individual locates the cause of a perceived event or behavior in another person. Further, by combining the ideas of Kelley and Weiner, not attributing leadership to a supervisor could be understood as an attribution owing to (missing) skills or abilities in a person (Eberly, Holley, Johnson, & Mitchell, 2011; Martinko & Thomson, 1998). Generally, this idea of a subordinate 9

Journal Pre-proof who perceives a lack of leadership skills in the supervisor’s behaviors is compatible with the notion of unfulfilled leadership expectations. Leadership expectations are what connects implicit leadership theories to leadership attribution theory. Thus, Calder specified and included leadership expectations’ role, based on an implicit leadership theory, into a follower-centered leadership attribution theory (1977). He delineates a process that describes how an implicit leadership theory and its prototype are a criterion to evaluate observed supervisor behaviors, in order to attribute or not attribute leadership. If a person’s perceptions and experiences match the behaviors and attitudes represented by the prototype, the person is categorized as a leader. Thus, leadership can be understood as a quality one ascribes to certain behaviors. So far, Calder’s approach is key to understanding why subordinates accept or reject their supervisor as a leader. However, we argue that this conception – a 0 or 1 attribution (Martinez et al., 2012) of leadership – is too simplistic. In particular, newcomers may react in a wait-and-see way for the time being, since they are in an information-seeking or learning process, of which relational information forms an important part (Bauer et al., 2007; Bauer & Green, 1998). Relationshipbuilding with supervisors has been shown to be key in their proactive adjustment behaviors (Kammeyer-Mueller, Livingston, & Liao, 2011). Thus, we expect newcomers’ attributions to be more differentiated than Calder suggests. For instance, socialization theory discusses a positive framing of perceptions at the start of a new job (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth et al., 2007). Against this background, we suggest refining leadership attribution theory in relation to newcomers by adding diverse leadership expectation domains, explaining different newcomers’ behaviors and attribution consequences in cases of unfulfilled expectations. Given the acknowledged importance of the initial stage of newcomer socialization (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer & Green, 1998; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002), unfulfilled leadership expectations is a key issue in leader–newcomer relationship development and may have important effects on socialization outcomes. Surprisingly, we found no study on

10

Journal Pre-proof newcomers’ unfulfilled leadership expectations. Although employees’ reactions to injustice or offensive behaviors in the workplace have been examined (e.g., Aquino et al., 2001; Aquino et al., 2006; Kim, Shapiro, Aquino, Lim, & Bennett, 2008), these behavioral consequences refer mainly to strongly unfulfilled expectations and were not related to newcomers’ leadership expectations. We address this research gap in our empirical study and seek to make a first contribution on this issue by exploring the attributional and behavioral consequences for newcomers who experience unfulfilled leadership expectations. Against this background, our empirical study is explorative and guided by three research questions: (1) What are the most problematic (i.e. nonmatching) domains of newcomers’ leadership expectations? (2) What are the attributional consequences on leadership after experiencing an unfulfilled expectation? (3) Which reaction types do newcomers have to unfulfilled leadership expectations? 3 Empirical Study We employed a two-tier qualitative in-depth empirical study. First, we conducted a study that focuses on a leadership prototype comparison between experienced supervisors and future newcomers (prototype study). Second, we accompanied newcomers during their first experiences with a supervisor (leadership dyad study). The prototype study sought to contrast the implicit leadership theories of future subordinates with the role understanding of experienced supervisors (i.e. what their new subordinates may expect from them). Comparing an expectations-based prototype to a role-based prototype offers the opportunity to check whether there are topics or domains in which the non-fulfillment of newcomers’ expectations is more likely, owing to diverging opinions. The prototype study’s first purpose is to unveil non-matching patterns between the contents of newcomers’ leadership prototypes and supervisors’ role reflections. To not fulfill a person’s expectations, one can either deliberately behave differently (assuming that the expectations toward him or her are known), or one can 11

Journal Pre-proof simply assume a different (‘wrong’) set of expectations one is expected to meet. While the first case is not to predict on a theoretical basis, the latter can be revealed by the proposed comparison in the prototype study. Second, and most importantly, the prototype study helps to retrospectively validate the leadership dyad study. If leadership expectations and their nonfulfillment occur in a de facto leadership relationship but can also be derived by comparing general leadership prototypes, conceptual reflection about them will become more robust. Basically, it is about confirming outcomes between A (follower/newcomer) and B (leader) interacting by comparing A and B’s thinking about what to expect if there were an interaction. The leadership dyad study explored the cognitions and reactions of newcomers when they experienced dissatisfying moments owing to their supervisor’s leadership behaviors. Since we are interested in possible newcomers’ reactions, our study refers to the leadership dyad only from the newcomer perspective and not from the supervisor perspective. Based on these reallife findings, and validated by the prototype study, we sought to deepen our understanding of leadership attributions by newcomers. Figure 1 summarizes our research design. ------------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here. ------------------------------------------3.1 Case selection and data collection In both studies, we followed theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt, 1989; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Accordingly, case selection depended on theoretical background and context, looking for cases to maximize the possibility of gaining new and rich insights (Stake, 1995). For the prototype study, we interviewed Master’s business students who were about to enter working life by becoming employed and therefore supervised. On the one hand, they had been confronted with leadership topics and thus should be sensitized to leadership, enabling a strong ability to reflect and discuss the prototype of their implicit leadership theory. On the other hand, 12

Journal Pre-proof they have not yet had real professional activities that could have influenced or changed their leadership prototype. Thus, there has been no possible non-fulfillment of leadership expectations in a working context that could have changed their implicit theory. In contrast to the post-graduate students, we interviewed supervisors from a leadership training course with at least three years’ leadership experience. We used semi-structured interviews to ensure comparability between the participants and between the two groups (students and supervisors). Taken together, we interviewed six supervisors and six students. The interviews lasted one hour on average. In the leadership dyad study, we picked newcomers to a company, specifically career starters. Since implicit leadership theories are very context-sensitive (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005), we focused on newcomers with a higher educational background (universities, etc.; no apprenticeships), to ensure comparability and to (likewise the prototype study) get persons who are familiar with leadership topics. We asked nine graduates, as career starters, to keep a brief diary during the first months of their experiences with their supervisor. We asked them to note the types of and reasons for their interactions, how they felt afterwards, and whether they had taken any steps. The diary is key to ensuring a maximized real-life basis. We wanted to know the participants’ experiences in order to isolate situations in which their leadership expectations were unfulfilled and in which there were possible influences on their leadership attribution. Non-newcomers or people with advanced careers would not be able to offer “pure and unchanged” leadership prototypes. Such participants may already have experienced severe unfulfilled leadership expectations with former supervisors, leading to “impure” expectations (= prototypes being changed). This would make it very difficult to differentiate between effects rooted in their present leadership dyad or some other violations from the past. Therefore, it could be problematic to clearly isolate the cause for the result of the (failed) leadership attribution in their present leadership dyad.

13

Journal Pre-proof With reference to Zimmerman and Wieder’s diary-interview method (1977), we combined the diaries with follow-up interviews at two points in time (with one participant, we could do only one interview). The first interview took place after our participants had kept a diary for about two weeks. For the second interview, we could rely on a further diary period of approximately six weeks. The second interview allowed us to establish whether unfulfilled expectations had changed for the better or were still in place. The diary generated the questions to be asked in the qualitative interview. This combination gave us the opportunity to track newcomers’ thoughts, emotions, and behavioral motives, enabling discussion in the interview. The diarists served as adjunct ethnographers of their own circumstances and had an informant role, based on questions generated from their own diaries in the interview. In sum, we only used findings from the dyad study that could be validated by the prototype study for theory development, except differences that could be explained and therefore were supported by existing research. Notably, we deliberately conducted the prototype study before the leadership dyad study, although their results were also used for a downstream validation, owing to the researchers’ objectivity and detachment. We had relatively little influence on the content of the questionnaires in the leadership dyad study – they were based on the newcomers’ individual diaries. Our influence on the content of the questionnaires of the prototype story, besides the given standards of an open-minded semi-structured interview, was much higher. Thus, we sought to avoid being influenced by detected unfulfilled leadership expectations from the real leadership dyads when conducting the prototype story. Summing up both studies, we collected data from 21 participants, relying on 29 interviews, with almost 20 hours and 480 pages of transcripts. The interview quotes provided in the tables and in the text were translated from German to English. The diaries contained 66 entries and covered a period of between 8 and 10 weeks. The newcomers (6 males and 3 females between the ages of 23 and 34) had business, engineering, computer, and nature sciences backgrounds

14

Journal Pre-proof and had been employed for less than six months before starting the diaries (experiencing supervisors in administration, product development, healthcare laboratories, software coding teams, headhunting agencies, and others). The students (3 males and 3 females between the ages of 22 and 25) from the prototype study were studying business and business-related courses (industrial engineering, economic computer science, etc.), while the supervisors (4 males and 2 females between the ages of 31 and 60) led marketing, accounting, procurement, logistics, production planning teams, and public administration. Their supervisor experience ranged from three years and at least five followers up to 36 years and 290 followers. 3.2 Data analysis In both studies, we used the coding procedures suggested by grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). We developed a hierarchy of first-order codes, second-order themes, and theoretical dimensions depicted in a data structure (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013) for the leadership dyad study, since the theory development should be based on the study participants’ real-life experiences. Thus, we started with open coding, in which we sought to filter out firstorder codes, which were an abstraction of verbatim expressions, further condensing the firstorder codes into more abstract second-order themes. Finally, we aggregated second-order themes into theoretical dimensions. The process of abstraction from first-order to second-order themes and further to theoretical dimensions was strongly based on communicative validation (Flick, 2014; Lee, 1999) between the two authors. For the leadership dyad study, Figures 2 and 3 in the findings section illustrate our aggregation path from first-order codes to theoretical dimensions. For the prototype study, we stopped the data analysis at the level of second-order themes, which were already sufficient to compare between the two groups, while a higher aggregation level would have hindered a focused comparison. We used QDA software (MAXQDA) for the coding procedure and applied additional analysis tools such as the “code relations browser” and the “proximity analysis” for the leadership dyad study. The code 15

Journal Pre-proof relations browser showed key tendencies concerning the appearances of different codes in close relation to others. To further validate our analysis, we then looked closely at the proximity of consequences codes to those of unfulfilled leadership expectations. We defined proximity as the directly following mentioning of consequences after an unfulfilled leadership expectation code within the same statement, or the next first lines of the next statement. With this proximity analysis, we found a typical pattern of newcomers’ consequences in relation to moments of perceived unfulfilled leadership expectations. 3.3 Findings To identify potential domains with a higher likelihood of unfulfilled newcomers’ leadership expectations, we show only the results of the prototype study where the student statements clearly differed from the supervisor statements. Thus, we deduced four topics from the prototype study. For all of them, we provide example quotes from the data in Table 1. ------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here. ------------------------------------------The first topic concerns the extent of social closeness or distance in a subordinate-supervisor relationship. From our data, it seemed that the supervisors tended to favor higher social or personal closeness, with sometimes close friendship-like patterns. The students tended to resist this relationship type, describing it as negative or complicated. Thus, it seems likely that the supervisor could try to influence the relationship in a way that would foster social closeness, while the follower would not accept or value this relationship type with the supervisor. The second theme we identified concerned perceiving trust by delegation. The students emphasized the importance of being delegated tasks with a reasonable degree of freedom and the permission to make decisions independently. They described this delegation style as perceived supervisor trust. Delegation seems to be a signal that supervisors trust their 16

Journal Pre-proof subordinates. The supervisors also spoke of building trust, but never in connection with delegating tasks with a high scope for action. This could lead to misunderstandings concerning the signaling of trust by a supervisor, as long as the intended signals don’t include the abovementioned delegation style. Further, the data showed a pattern of contradicting opinions concerning supervisors’ proactive behaviors in terms of recognizing and intervening. The students tended to expect supervisors to recognize certain follower problems without being expressed and to intervene appropriately. The supervisors did not proactively mention these issues. They stressed the importance of always offering “an open door,” i.e. they rely on followers to let them know if there are problems. Thus, a problem will arise in a situation in which a follower expects proactive problem recognition from the supervisor, while the supervisor expects the follower to let them know if something is wrong. The fourth topic we discovered concerned feedback situation and feedback frequency. The students tended to prefer frequent feedback in spontaneous and informal occasions, with official appraisal interviews used for goal discussion or task structuring rather than to demonstrate what could be improved or what has been done well in the past. In turn, the supervisors seemed to prefer the official framing of feedback and considered spontaneous, informal talks to be less important. Thus, diverging priorities about when and how to give feedback could lead to unfulfilled expectations or misunderstandings. In the leadership dyad study, we analyzed the data concerning unfulfilled leadership expectations and the behavioral consequences, developing a data structure for each. For the unfulfilled leadership expectations, we could aggregate the data up to the three dimensions structural leadership, leadership behaviors, and interpersonal relationship (see Figure 2).

-------------------------------------------

17

Journal Pre-proof Insert Figure 2 about here. ------------------------------------------The aggregate dimension structural leadership contains the second-order themes pressure, working conditions, and integration. Generally, the statements in these themes and categories all refer to universal and not situational perceptions. They don’t result from a single moment of interaction and paint a bigger picture of the general conditions in the workplace, which are perceived as being influenced by the supervisor. For instance, the newcomers mentioned team mood, pressure in terms of the demanded work pace, the provided resources, and the leader’s ability to organize and make decisions. As a newcomer noted: “When we meet, it’s important to set an agenda. That’s something I started to do, so this was a bit strange for me. This is maybe also something cultural. In Italy, where I come from, I’m used to the boss being the boss. So, you don’t try to go over the boss, you don’t set agendas, or you’re fired, not fired, but you’re in a bad situation. And here sometimes I wonder, because, okay, there is no agenda, then I set an agenda and then everyone is okay with this. But this feels strange, because I’m not the project manager; it’s not my role.” (C Interview 1) Taken together, these aspects can be understood as some structural setting types instead of a direct leader–follower interaction. The focus is on general rules and norms formed by the supervisor. Thus, these measures can be related to the leadership substitutes presented by Kerr and Jermier (1978); these influence followers independently from the situational leader behaviors. They stem from rules and task characteristics or team-building initiatives set up by a supervisor. Podsakoff, Niehoff, MacKenzie, and Williams (1993) claimed that these substitutes have a moderating effect on how followers perceive their roles in their relationship to their supervisor. Thus, it is reasonable to understand unfulfilled perceptions in this domain as structural leadership. In case of unfulfilled structural leadership expectations, newcomers are unsatisfied with general rules, decisions, or arrangements supervisors have made concerning newcomers’ tasks or other variables in the team or in the workplace.

18

Journal Pre-proof We labeled the next aggregate dimension leadership behaviors; it represents the clearest tendency in our data. It involves the second-order themes feedback, delegation, proactiveness, and communication. In contrast to the structural leadership dimension, leadership behaviors refer to situational perceptions of direct interpersonal interactions. Especially situations of delegating tasks were mentioned by many newcomers while complaining about a lack of freedom of action or permission to make own decisions. As a newcomer said: “No, it’s definitely due to my boss. In my opinion, and I can give you many examples, I did everything possible to show and prove that I am ready to take on more responsibility. I really want to. I explicitly ask for it. Well, it hasn’t worked out yet. I’m not getting more responsibility.” (B Interview 1) The quality and quantity of feedback, supervisor proactiveness, and communication were further key tendencies. This dimension is in line with traditional research into leadership styles and behaviors, addressing typical leader behaviors such as feedback, delegation, and communication (Yukl, 2010, 2012). Finally, we derived a third dimension, which we labeled interpersonal relationship. Covering the second-order themes accessibility, trust, and relationship behavior, this dimension refers to the possibilities of interacting with a supervisor and getting help, the signals and development of trust, and the quality and intensity of the leader–follower relationship. A newcomer recalled an example: “I heard the famous or infamous words, ‘but we’re like a big family.’ Wow, wait a minute! Never say that to me. [...] So, it’s nice when my project manager asks me how it’s going at home, if everything is all right. If it stops there, I’m happy, because he shouldn’t become invasive. I don’t see my project manager as my friend, but it’s okay, he’s isn’t my friend.” (C Interview 1) Table 2 summarizes further example quotes of all second-order themes from the three aggregated dimensions belonging to the unfulfilled leadership expectations. ------------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here.

19

Journal Pre-proof ------------------------------------------Concerning the participant newcomers’ behavioral actions, we could identify three aggregate dimensions that structured the tendencies in the statements: investing, confrontation, and withdrawal (see Figure 3). ------------------------------------------Insert Figure 3 about here. ------------------------------------------The strongest trend in the data concerning behavioral consequences is investing, with its two second-order themes acceptance and higher efforts. For instance, a newcomer handled anger about an unfulfilled expectation as follows: “I know that things change quickly around here, and so I just condone things. I can’t change things. It’s not within my scope or rank. It makes no sense to be angry. This would just depress my mood.” (D Interview 1) However, statements that show increased newcomer efforts to improve the relationship were clearly dominant over the pure acceptance scheme. An interviewee stated: “And that’s when I tried to make it clear to him. That didn’t work out so well in the first conversation. I didn’t want to go like a bull at a gate. Then it was better for the second conversation. There I was positively surprised (...).” (E Interview 1) Interestingly, acceptance and higher efforts come close to the positive behaviors discussed under victims’ reactions to personal offenses in the workplace (Aquino et al., 2001; Aquino et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2008; Palanski, 2012). However, the personal offenses literature must be understood as a higher-level frame of aggression (e.g., harm) than an unfulfilled expectation, although the basic patterns are the same, especially when forgiveness or reconciliation are discussed (Aquino et al., 2006; Grover, Hasel, Manville, & Serrano-Archimi, 2014). The former is an intrapersonal and passive reaction, and the latter an interpersonal and active one

20

Journal Pre-proof (Okimoto & Wenzel, 2014; Palanski, 2012). Acceptance and higher efforts can also be distinguished in this way. Taken together, the investing dimension is all about positive and constructive ways to influence the interpersonal relationship and dealing with unfulfilled leadership expectations. It is generally a reaction that seeks to maintain and improve the relationship with the supervisor. The confrontation dimension does not describe constructive reactions; it is about fighting the supervisor and taking a conflicting position, but without the intention to end the relationship. This concerns for instance escalating an issue to a higher hierarchical level, or the refusal to support the leader. Building defenses in order to dissociate from a supervisor if things go wrong and passing the responsibility to the leader is another typical reaction in this dimension. A participant described their reaction as follows: “In this case I thought, well, there are options for escalation one can try. My boss also has a boss, and so on…” (B Interview 2) Our findings, represented by the second-order themes defiance, lack of support, and alienation, approximate the behaviors discussed in the revenge literature (Aquino et al., 2001; Aquino et al., 2006; Douglas et al., 2008). The third dimension, withdrawal, includes the second-order themes exit and lower performance. It does not represent behaviors that confront a supervisor; it is about reducing one’s efforts and even considering quitting. Such behaviors can be considered as destructive, but without being aggressive or trying to ‘win’ the conflict. A participant newcomer voiced a typical statement to express this reaction type: “If that is not the case, then I will definitely apply for a job elsewhere!” (A Interview 1) Withdrawing from a relationship (or from work) is a typical reaction discussed in social psychology when it is not possible or desirable to maintain a relationship or to work on it (Carver, 2006; Elliot & Thrash, 2002). 21

Journal Pre-proof Table 3 contains further example quotes concerning all the behavioral consequences. ------------------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here. ------------------------------------------4 Discussion We sought to identify domains of possible unfulfilled leadership expectations, their effects on leadership attributions, and subsequent behavioral subsequences. We will now suggest a comprehensive model of newcomers’ leadership attributions that distinguishes between different leadership expectations and the connected behavioral consequences. We will then derive propositions for each domain of the three unfulfilled leadership expectations. The proposed links are based on our analysis tools, as noted (see 3.2), supported by general research into workplace behaviors and theoretical considerations from attribution theory. However, we acknowledge that fairly complex patterns are presented on the basis of our study and that our model is a first attempt to illustrate these patterns. Our discussion ends with reflections on our study’s limitations and practical implications, as well as possible further research options. 4.1 A comprehensive model of newcomers’ leadership attributions As depicted in Figure 4, after the relationship between a newcomer and a supervisor formally starts, we could identify three leadership expectation domains from our data. We suggested labeling them as interpersonal relationship, structural leadership, and leadership behavior. We only integrated expectations found in our leadership dyad study that could either be validated through our prototype study or through general leadership research. Based on our findings, we connected the various behavioral and attributional consequences, given the case of unfulfilled expectations in the above domains. We only integrated expressed behavioral consequences from our participant newcomers that showed a clear connection to the various expectation domains in our analysis tools. 22

Journal Pre-proof ------------------------------------------Insert Figure 4 about here. ------------------------------------------For clarification, Figure 4 does and should not indicate a chronological sequence. All behavioral consequence links could appear simultaneously or in a different order, depending on individual experiences. Generally, for all dimensions of unfulfilled expectations, there was a clear tendency in our data to react with behaviors in the abovementioned sense of investing. The literature about newcomer behaviors generally supports this basic tendency to behave constructively. Proactive feedback-seeking behaviors are well known among newcomers (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013; Nifadkar et al., 2012; Schaubroeck, Peng, & Hannah, 2013). Either way, newcomers take the initiative to attune to the supervisor or at least to accept unfulfilled expectations and not bring them up. If the perception of unfulfilled expectations recurs or continues after investing, our findings indicate that the further consequences differ between the leadership expectation dimensions. In particular, the second interview served to elicit a repetition of the non-fulfillment of leadership expectations. Over time, positive framing or other evaluations may well change (De Vos, 2005); for instance, withdrawal behaviors generally become more likely when expectations are repeatedly not met (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2013). 4.2 Propositions concerning unfulfilled expectations of interpersonal relationship The domain interpersonal relationship first reflects expectations not being exclusive for a relationship with a supervisor, in contrast to the other two. The contents of this domain could also be relevant for other workplace relationships. Nonetheless, they paint a picture of necessary prerequisites for a leadership attribution, since they contain special forms of the leader role. In all relationship types, a certain level of perceived competencies is key (Anand, Vidyarthi, Liden, & Rousseau, 2010; Dumas, Phillips, & Rothbard, 2013; Lam & Lau, 2012). However, 23

Journal Pre-proof the strongest pattern in the interpersonal relationship domain relates to the unfulfilled expectations concerning the extent of social closeness or distance. Social distance is a known key variable for creating opportunities to influence followers via leadership behavior (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). We suggest that strong unfulfilled expectations in the interpersonal relationship domain lead to severe attribution effects that hinder the attribution of leadership, since the follower perceives the relationship’s foundation as too weak. We refer to Eberly et al. (2011), who added the attribution category relationship to Kelley and Weiner’s work. Thus, a follower could consider the supervisor to be the cause of negative perceptions of the relationship. Such attribution of causality could lead to relational work – just like investing, but withdrawal is also possible “when the attributer believes nothing can be done to remedy the relationship.” (Eberly et al., 2011, p. 743). This statement points to the behavioral consequences of withdrawal, for which we found a link to repeated unfulfilled interpersonal relationship expectations. If these expectations are not met to a certain minimum, they hamper the attribution of leadership, and the follower tends to withdraw or at least disinvest from the relationship. The prototype study also showed the importance of the ‘correct’ extent of social closeness or distance and supports the argumentation so far. Against this background, we propose: Proposition 1a: Expectations of the interpersonal relationship domain have a normative aspect and serve as necessary conditions for newcomers’ leadership attributions. Proposition 1b: Unfulfilled expectations of the interpersonal relationship domain hamper newcomers’ leadership attributions and lead to a negative attribution concerning the relationship. Proposition 1c: Repeated unfulfilled expectations of the personal relationship domain are likely to cause newcomers to withdraw after ineffective investing behavior.

24

Journal Pre-proof 4.3 Propositions concerning unfulfilled expectations of structural leadership The expectations in the structural leadership domain are directly associated with leadership and not with general organizational structures. We interpret the contents of these expectations as some basic leadership obligation types on the part of followers. According to our findings, newcomers spoke of inevitable duties to be fulfilled by supervisors. This perspective understands unfulfilled expectations as broken rules. We assume that newcomers perceive leaders who don’t meet basic obligations as rule-breakers in terms of their fundamental duties in the organization (e.g., not creating enough frameworks or not creating clear ones). Thus, a lack of actions by a leader is held responsible for hindering the accomplishment of newcomers’ tasks and duties. If non-completed tasks are understood as a stressor for a person, leadership is seen as a key driver of this stressor (Y. Zhang, Lepine, Buckman, & Feng, 2014). Leaders can influence how followers perceive their tasks in many ways, with several effects (Bono & Judge, 2003; Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006). Thus, leaders can also have negative impacts on how followers see their work. Owing to unfulfilled expectations, a supervisor could cause the follower to experience high stress as a result of tasks perceived as too difficult or impossible to handle. Thus, followers are likely to cite a lack of leadership as the reason why they cannot do their job properly. This argumentation can again be linked to the theory about workplace aggression. The reason for aggressive behaviors often lies in unfulfilled expectations arising from others’ behaviors. Bies and Tripp (2005) discuss three malpractice categories that cause disappointment. One is the violation of rules, norms, and promises. A person who accepted the supervisor role promises to stick to the rules of for instance making decisions or enabling task fulfillment. If this is not the case, followers may experience this as a violation of rules and promises. In this case, revenge behaviors become very likely (Aquino et al., 2006). Thus, unsurprisingly, our data shows a strong tendency of confrontational consequences after repeated unfulfilled expectations of structural leadership. The reason why there is no such

25

Journal Pre-proof tendency of withdrawal as in the personal relationship dimension and why there may be a first reaction to invest is probably perceived organizational justice’s moderating role (Aquino et al., 2006). If there is a repeated or a strong perceived rule violation, and if the newcomer believes that there are ways to pursue a claim via organizational justice mechanisms, they may feel a strong mandate to do so. In terms of the preferences concerning for instance social distance in the interpersonal relationship dimension, such a strong mandate is likely not assumed – leaving the only option to withdraw or surrender and to not ‘fight.’ The debate about organizational justice includes several aggressive coworker reactions if they perceive injustice (Ambrose, 2002; Colquitt, Wesson, Porter, Conlon, & Ng, 2001; Hollensbe, Khazanchi, & Masterson, 2008), and a follower of a supervisor who does not fulfill the supervisor role concerning expectations of structural leadership may feel justified to do so and may want to defend themselves (Bies & Tripp, 2002). Following these considerations, we suggest a different interpretation compared to the interpersonal relationship domain concerning the effects on newcomers’ leadership attributions. While the first hinders a leadership attribution owing to a missing foundation for the relationship, the structural leadership domain does so because the supervisor could not prove having fulfilled the basic obligations of being a leader. The consequence is a denial or refusal of a leadership attribution. Proposition 2a: Expectations of the structural leadership domain have a normative aspect and serve as necessary conditions for newcomers’ leadership attributions. Proposition 2b: Unfulfilled expectations of the structural leadership domain lead to a denial or refusal of newcomers’ leadership attributions. Proposition 2c: Repeated unfulfilled expectations of the structural leadership domain are likely to cause confronting behaviors on the part of newcomers after ineffective investing behaviors.

26

Journal Pre-proof In Figure 4, we suggest that the leadership expectation dimensions interpersonal relationship and structural leadership are immediate and necessary conditions for attributing leadership to a supervisor. Both dimensions can individually prevent someone from being recognized as a leader when there are clear unfulfilled expectations from an implicit leadership theory. If the expectations in these dimensions are widely and satisfactorily met, denial of leadership attribution becomes unlikely. However, complete attribution is not automatically assured. Immediate conditions refer to the short-term character of perceptions and judgments – our data indicates that the newcomers needed little time to evaluate these dimensions of expectations. As we will now discuss, the leadership behaviors domain differs substantially from the other two. Meeting the expectations of the two necessary dimensions did not make a supervisor earn praise or higher acknowledgement, but not meeting these expectations had severe negative consequences. Proposition 3:

Expectations of the interpersonal relationship and the structural leadership domains are immediate and necessary conditions of leadership attribution. Fulfilling the associated expectations is not sufficient for newcomers’ leadership attributions.

4.4 Propositions concerning unfulfilled expectations of leadership behaviors All participants who spoke of experiences relating to the leadership behavior domain took a fairly long-term context view. Their statements were often followed or preceded by notes that “this is just a small thing right now,” “it’s generally okay, but one thing is starting to bother me.” These “little things” would become very serious in the long run if they did not change. The typical reason given for these aspects’ increasing weight is the worry of being unable to accomplish personal goals (e.g., career) connected to work life in the current leader–follower relationship and owing to the leader’s behaviors. This awareness provides a clear indication of how to understand the connection between unfulfilled expectations of the leadership behavior 27

Journal Pre-proof domain and behavioral consequences. While the structural leadership domain is connected to a behavioral tendency toward confrontation, the tendency now shows a link to withdrawal instead. When participant newcomers spoke of worrying about accomplishing their own goals, we again see analogies to the debate about workplace revenge. Besides rule violation, there is also the obstruction of goals (Bies & Tripp, 2005). Our data clearly supports the goal obstruction justification for follower reactions. Especially delegation was very often connected to worries about personal goal achievement. The prototype study also showed that delegating sufficient freedom to act is key for perceived trust. It contributes to the long-term fear of being unable to grow in the tasks received or being unable to show one’s own potential owing to a delegation of only simple or non-holistic tasks. In the same way, the feedback theme showed goal obstruction tendencies in both studies’ data. Both delegation and feedback are central concepts in traditional motivational research (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), but also in more recent studies of coaching followers (Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Yan, 2006) and present debates about several leadership styles (Martin, Liao, & Campbell, 2013; X. Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Thus, rule violation can cause immediate and severe reactions, with little potential for appreciating the leadership provided, while goal obstruction slowly causes strong negative reactions in the long term, and newcomers ascribe low importance to such problems during the first months. The characterization of leadership behavior as a long-term sufficient condition for attributing leadership is also indicated by another finding in the data. It is the only dimension where we could find very positive statements about a supervisor. Some newcomers were positively surprised or happy with certain leader behaviors (e.g., delegation or feedback). This may be an indication of a comprehensive leadership attribution. Thus, for some newcomers, it may be important to perceive positive leadership behavior contents to wholly recognize the supervisor as a leader, while others may be satisfied with lower supervisor exertion in this dimension.

28

Journal Pre-proof Depending on their character (and not measurable in our qualitative approach) and their personal goals, such as career orientation, some newcomers likely don’t seek to have more responsibility delegated to them. They may be satisfied with a leader not violating the rules, attributing leadership faster than others. At least, they would tolerate (see Figure 4) the leadership and will not make higher demands. Vice versa, a very ambitious newcomer may have an implicit leadership theory with expectations of high delegation, communication, or feedback (e.g., high LMX) to accept someone as leader. If such a person experiences repeated unfulfilled expectations concerning these requirements, they will probably become frustrated in the long term and will look for a job elsewhere (withdrawal) or sometimes (this is the weaker tendency in the data) may also rebel against the supervisor (confrontation). Recalling the prototype study’s results, three of the four topics we identified as problematic expectations were again found in the leadership behavior domain (perceiving trust by delegation = delegation; recognizing and intervening during problems = proactivity; feedback situation and frequency = feedback). The reason may be a phenomenon proposed by Quaquebeke et al. (2014), who analyzed whether leader behavior is compared to the central tendency of an implicit theory or with an idealized prototype. They clearly pointed out the idealized prototype’s primacy. Thus, it makes sense that the student interviews in the prototype study stimulated the idealized prototype, leading to responses that mainly focused on expectations of the leadership behavior dimension with the strongest potential to elate followers. Proposition 4a: Expectations of the leadership behavior dimension have no normative aspect and serve as sufficient conditions for newcomers’ leadership attributions. However, in the case of high goal obstruction, they can develop a normative dimension.

29

Journal Pre-proof Proposition 4b: Newcomers’ unfulfilled expectations of the leadership behavior dimension at best lead to tolerating the leadership. Proposition 4c: Repeated unfulfilled expectations of the leadership behavior dimension are likely to cause newcomers to show withdrawal behavior after ineffective investing behavior. Depending on the extent and type of goal obstruction, tolerating the leadership can also cause confronting behavior. 4.5 Limitations, practical implications, and further research Since our study was explorative and qualitative, it does not allow for statistical generalization. However, with our diary study and follow-up interviews, we gained in-depth impressions of newcomers’ real-life leadership situations. Based on this research design, we could deliver first insights into what consequences one could expect from newcomers’ unfulfilled leadership expectations. Further, we asked the participant newcomers of the leadership relationship study to reflect on their experiences with their supervisors. Many statements, especially concerning the behavioral consequences, did not represent complete episodes of actions – many were more an expression of intention. There is no guarantee that a participant would really “walk the talk” if a problem continued. Although the patterns proposed in Figure 4 and the discussed propositions were very clear in the data, we cannot definitely exclude non-reported links between the domains of unfulfilled leadership expectations and the behavioral consequences. What we demonstrated are typical links or key tendencies. While all our propositions are based on our data, other elements may influence newcomer-supervisor relationships; however, these were not indicated or reflected by our participants. Repetitions with larger samples may help support our propositions. Relationships to supervisors are a very sensitive and confidential topic, and not only for

30

Journal Pre-proof newcomers as new followers. Complete honesty and trust to speak openly can be called into question. Finally, the results must be judged in the context in which the data was collected. Our participant newcomers were all academics and had at least some connections to leadership issues throughout their studies. Thus, the newcomers’ different education levels, ages, cultures, etc. may have delivered different results. However, our sample size was too small to differentiate our findings on at least some divergences in newcomers’ backgrounds. Also, we did not look at the newcomers’ personal characteristics, which may also have had important influences on how newcomers react to unfulfilled leadership expectations. Taken together, these potential differences must be considered when transferring the results into a different context. Concerning practical implications, one straightforward recommendation for supervisors could be to fulfill expectations in all the leadership expectations domains we have identified. Such issues – as the ‘right’ form of delegation, feedback, pressure, etc. – should be on leadership training and development agendas. However, in our view, it is not just a matter of acquiring such skills primarily through techniques or management tools, but through awareness of interaction dynamics and conscious reflection on one’s actions. Thus, leadership training should sensitize participants to the importance of expectations and their development in interaction processes between supervisors and newcomers. Especially when looking at the interpersonal relationship domain, things may become complex to address. For instance, there is no recipe for how to build a trustful relationship. Besides having an understanding of relationship expectations, foremost, leaders must make time for their newcomers. Against this background, investing time and effort in relationships with their newcomers would be the most important recommendation.

31

Journal Pre-proof Our study also allows for better supervisor understanding of newcomers’ problematic behaviors. Especially confrontational behavior requires appropriate leadership action. Relying on our study results, supervisors could first check whether the expectations of structural leadership are fulfilled and show action in this domain. Perceiving withdrawal behaviors should stimulate supervisors to reflect on the personal relationship and on their leadership behavior. With this first orientation in mind, supervisors can address the right questions for themselves and in their communication with their newcomers. They will also be able to structure possible answers along our leadership expectation domains. Thus, our second recommendation is reflective communication with newcomers. Concerning further research, notably, our study is a first step into a largely underexplored field. Further studies could build on these first insights and could elaborate our findings. A standard impulse could be to develop hypotheses out of our propositions and to test them. However, we consider the design of such a quantitative study to be very challenging, for instance concerning accessibility to newcomers and the different supervisor-newcomer relationship durations. Against this background, we call for more ethnographic leadership studies (for a current review on ethnographic studies in organizations, see O’Doherty & Neyland, 2019) so as to get further insights into real-life leadership ‘moments.’ In our view, the use and development of diary-interview methods as an ethnographic data collection type is very promising. Regarding new insights, further research could first focus on moderating factors between unfulfilled leadership expectations and followers’ behavioral consequences. It may be interesting to look closely at personality patterns as well as cultural dimensions. Second, we have examined the leadership dyad only from the newcomers’ perspective. Integrating supervisor perceptions and consequent behaviors may enrich our understanding of the leader– follower interaction dynamics. Further, non-newcomers may add different perspectives to this complex constellation. They may not tend toward constructive investment behaviors at first as

32

Journal Pre-proof much as newcomers do. Thus, studying possible second-order effects from leadership dyads in the past on the follower’s behavior in the current leadership dyad (e.g., a reduced willingness to react constructively) offer a new path of research. 5 Conclusion We have addressed newcomers’ leadership attributions, a mainly ignored and underexamined issue in the research into the socialization of newcomers. We suggested that different domains of newcomers’ unfulfilled leadership expectations have different consequences for leadership attribution and newcomers’ behaviors. We have developed a refined model to offer new insights into a differentiated understanding of newcomers’ leadership attributions. Attribution levels can be distinguished from one another by different leadership expectation domains. Owing to the contents and characters of these expectations, we have indicated that different newcomers’ behavioral consequences can occur. As reasons for not (or not completely) attributing leadership, we suggest first looking at the quality of the relationship with the supervisor, which may lead to a lack of foundation for leadership attribution. Thus, newcomers’ performance will decline or an intention to leave will arise. Second, we explained how violations of rules and promises could lead to the refusal of leadership and subsequently to confronting behaviors. Finally, we have shown how missing individual leader behaviors such as task delegation, feedback, or proactiveness can lead to the obstruction of goals, which may prevent a newcomer from advancing. Newcomers may turn to long-term negative reactions, such as frustration or quitting. We trust that our model and propositions will stimulate promising further research, to deepen and refine our differentiated approach to newcomers’ leadership attributions and its connections to their behaviors. References Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 803-812. 33

Journal Pre-proof Anand, S., Vidyarthi, P. R., Liden, R. C., & Rousseau, D. M. (2010). Good citizens in poorquality relationships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 970-988. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.54533176 Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: a review and a proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 673-704. Aquino, K., Tripo, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 52-59. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.52 Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 653-668. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 149-178. doi:10.2307/256634 Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 447-462. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.02.001 Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 7283. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.1.72

34

Journal Pre-proof Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). Hot flashes, open wounds: Injustice and the tyranny of its emotions. In D. D. Steiner, D. O. Skarlicki, & S. W. Gilliland (Eds.), Emerging Perspectives on Managing Organizational Justice (pp. 203-223). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2005). The study of revenge in the workplace: Conceptual, ideological, and empirical issues. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counter- productive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 65-81). Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554-571. doi:10.2307/30040649 Brown, D. J. (2012). In the minds of followers: Follower-centric approaches to leadership. In J. Antonakis & D. V. Day (Eds.), The nature of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 331-362). Los Angeles: Sage. Calder, B. J. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015 Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 105-110. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9044-7 Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., Conlon, D. E., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 637-647.

35

Journal Pre-proof Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 423-437. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research – techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications. De Vos, A. (2005). The psychological contract of organisational newcomers: an investigation of antecedents and changes over time. International Journal of Human Resources Development & Management, 5(4), 371-388. Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader-member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 618-634. Douglas, S. C., Kiewitz, C., Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Younhee, K. I. M., & Jae Uk, C. (2008). Cognitions, emotions, and evaluations: An elaboration likelihood model for workplace

aggression.

Academy

of

Management

Review,

33(2),

425-451.

doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.31193490 Dumas, T. L., Phillips, K. W., & Rothbard, N. P. (2013). Getting closer at the company Party: Integration experiences, racial dissimilarity, and workplace relationships. Organization Science, 24(5), 1377-1401. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0808 Eberly, M. B., Holley, E. C., Johnson, M. D., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Beyond internal and external: A Dyadic Theory of Relational Attributions Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 731-753. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.65554734 Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 736-741. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

36

Journal Pre-proof Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 82(5), 804-818. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.5.804 Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659-676. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659 Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24 (6), 851-881 doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005 Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative Research (5 ed.). Thoasand Oaks CA: Sage. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 1531. doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative Research. New York: Aldine. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multilevel

multi-domain

perspective.

The

Leadership

Quarterly,

6(2),

219-247.

doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Grover, S. L., Hasel, M. C., Manville, C., & Serrano-Archimi, C. (2014). Follower reactions to leader trust violations: A grounded theory of violation types, likelihood of recovery, and recovery

process.

European

Management

Journal,

32(5),

689-702.

doi:10.1016/j.emj.2014.01.002

37

Journal Pre-proof Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170. Harris, T. B., Li, N., Boswell, W. R., Zhang, X.-a., & Xie, Z. (2014). Getting what's new from newcomers: Empowering leadership, creativity, and adjustment in the socialization context. Personnel Psychology, 67(3), 567-604. doi:10.1111/peps.12053 Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal Relations: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hollensbe, E. C., Khazanchi, S., & Masterson, S. S. (2008). How do I assess if my supervisor and organization are fair? Identifying the rules underlying entity-based justice perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1099-1116. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732600 Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Change in newcomers' supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 527-544. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41330971 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Livingston, B. A., & Liao, H. (2011). Perceived similarity, proactive adjustment, and organizational socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 225236. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.012 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Zhaoli, S. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1104-1124. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0791 Kelley, H. (1967). Attribution theory in social interaction. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192 - 238). Lincoln (N.E.): University of Nebraska Press. Kelley, H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. Jones, H. Kelley, & D. Kanouse (Eds.), Attribution: Percieving the Causes of Behavior (pp. 1 - 26). Morristown (N.J.). Kelley, H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. Amercian Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.

38

Journal Pre-proof Kelley, H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22(3), 375-403. Kim, T.-Y., Shapiro, D. L., Aquino, K., Lim, V. K. G., & Bennett, R. J. (2008). Workplace offense and victims' reactions: the effects of victim-offender (dis)similarity, offense-type, and cultural differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(3), 415-433. doi:10.1002/job.519 Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Yan, X. (2006). Dynamic delegation: shared, hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590-621. Lam, L. W., & Lau, D. C. (2012). Feeling lonely at work: investigating the consequences of unsatisfactory workplace relationships. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4265-4282. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.665070 Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343-378. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6 Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G. Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment Views (pp.104-121). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1993). Leadership and information processing. Linking perceptions and performance. London: Routledge.

39

Journal Pre-proof MacDonald, H. A., Sulsky, L. M., & Brown, D. J. (2008). Leadership and perceiver cognition: Examining the role of self-Identity in implicit leadership theories. Human Performance, 21(4), 333-353. doi:10.1080/08959280802347031 Martin, S. L., Liao, H. U. I., & Campbell, E. M. (2013). Directive versus empowering leadership: A field experiment comparing impacts on task proficiency and proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1372-1395. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0113 Martinez, A. D., Martinko, M. J., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). Fuzzy attribution styles. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 17-24. doi:10.1177/1548051811425677 Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., Brees, J. R., & Mackey, J. (2013). A review of abusive supervision research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 120-137. doi:10.1002/job.1888 Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelley attribution models. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 20(4), 271-284. Medvedeff, M. E., & Lord, R. G. (2007). Implicit leadership theories as dynamic processing structures. In J. R. Meindl & B. Shaimir (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (HC) (pp. 19-50): IAP - Information Age Pub. Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341. doi:10.1016/10489843(95)90012-8 Nifadkar, S. S. (2018). Filling in the “blank slate”: Examining newcomers’ schemas of supervisors during organizational socialization. Journal of Management (online first). doi:10.1177/0149206318807288 Nifadkar, S. S., Tsui, A. S., & Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The way you make me feel and behave: Supervisor-triggered newcomer affect and approach-avoidance behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 55(5), 1146-1168. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0133

40

Journal Pre-proof O’Doherty, D., & Neyland, D. (2019). The developments in ethnographic studies of organising: Towards objects of ignorance and objects of concern. Organization, 26(4), 449-469. doi:10.1177/1350508419836965 Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2014). Bridging diverging perspectives and repairing damaged relationships in the aftermath of workplace transgressions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 443-473. doi:10.5840/beq201471515 Palanski, M. (2012). Forgiveness and reconciliation in the workplace: A multi-level perspective and research Agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 275-287. doi:10.1007/s10551011-1125-1 Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327340. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786079 Podsakoff, P. M., Niehoff, B. P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Williams, M. L. (1993). Do substitutes for leadership really substitute for leadership? An empirical examination of Kerr. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 1-44. Quaquebeke, N. v., Graf, M. M., & Eckloff, T. (2014). What do leaders have to live up to? Contrasting the effects of central tendency versus ideal-based leader prototypes in leader categorization processes. Leadership, 10(2), 191-217. doi:10.1177/1742715013476081 Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27-48). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schaubroeck, J. M., Peng, A. C., & Hannah, S. T. (2013). Developing trust with peers and leaders: Impacts on organizational identification and performance during entry. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 1148-1168. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0358

41

Journal Pre-proof Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of leadership: An overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small Group Research, 37(5), 522-539. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers' roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Followercentered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 939). Greenwich (CT): Information Age. Shamir, B. (2012). Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing leadership theory versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 477-500). Charlotte (NC): Information Age Publishing. Shondrick, S. J., Dinh, J. E., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Developments in implicit leadership theory and cognitive science: Applications to improving measurement and understanding alternatives to hierarchical leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 959-978. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.004 Shondrick, S. J., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and followership theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, leader-follower processes. In International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2010 (pp. 1-33): Wiley-Blackwell. Sluss, D. M., & Thompson, B. S. (2012). Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 119(1), 114-125. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.005 Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research Thousand Oaks: Sage. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review

and

research

agenda.

The

Leadership

Quarterly,

25(1),

83-104.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

42

Journal Pre-proof Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264. Weiner, B. (1986). An attribution theory of motivation and emotion. New York: SpringerVerlag. Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R. M. (1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. New York: General Learning Press. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective Leadership Behavior: What We know and what questions need more attention.

Academy

of

Management

Perspectives,

26(4),

66-85.

doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0088 Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement.

Academy

of

Management

Journal,

53(1),

107-128.

doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037118 Zhang, Y., Lepine, J. A., Buckman, B. R., & Feng, W. E. I. (2014). It's not fair...or is it? The Role of justice and leadership in explaining work stressor–job performance relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 675-697. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.1110 Zimmerman, D. A., & Weider, D. L. (1977). The diary: Diary-interview method. Urban Life, 5(4), 479-498.

43

Journal Pre-proof Figure 1: Empirical Design Leadership dyad study Follower/ Newcomer: perceptions, cognitions, reactions

Research objectives Supervisor (not relevant)

leadership dyad

• differentiating contents of leadership expectations • linking behavioral consequences to disappointed expectations

Study focus: Newcomers’ experiences within the leadership relationship

• deriving effects on leadership attribution

Elaborating theory

Results Validation

Future followers: leadership prototypes

Research objectives independent, no relationship

Supervisors’ role perceptions

• differentiating contents of leadership expectations • identifying ‘lacking’ a supervisor’s role knowledge as potential area of unfulfilled leadership expectation (role perception ≠ leadership prototype)

Study focus: comparing independent prototypes and role perceptions

Prototype study

44

Journal Pre-proof

Figure 2: Data Structure of Unfulfilled Leadership Expectations

First-order concepts

Second-order themes

• • •

forced to prove progress/results pace high amount of work

pressure

• •

mood fundamental requirements of task fulfillment

working conditions

• • •

creating team spirit sharing lunchtime involving into the team

integration

• • •

content frequency obtaining followers’ feedback

feedback

• • • •

suitable for the individual instructional behavior task type responsibility and scope of action

delegation

• •

social-empathetic job-related

proactivity

• • •

person-related transparent job-related

communication

• • • •

frequency of conversations lack of presence having no time to talk not available if help is needed

• • • • •

deputizing supervisor perceived trust via freedom to act confidential interaction building trust not perceiving trust

• • • •

contact quality social distance vs. closeness interest in the person no ‘bossy’ behavior

Aggregate dimensions

Structural leadership

Leadership behavior

accessibility trust

Interpersonal relationship

relationship behavior

45

Journal Pre-proof Figure 3: Data Structure of Behavioral Consequences

First-order concepts • • •

understanding the supervisor’s behaviors dealing with anger irony

Second-order themes

Aggregate dimensions

acceptance

Investing • • •

help and support supervisor increasing proactive behavior addressing problems

higher efforts

• • •

questioning leadership skills pointing out contradictions escalating case in hierarchy/work council

defiance

• •

keeping problems to oneself not taking responsibility for the supervisor’s decisions

neglecting support

• • •

“do my own thing” social delineation building barriers

alienation

• • •

changing departments taking sick quitting

exit

Confrontation

Withdrawal • • •

not trying to do the utmost doubting one's work quality unable to do the utmost

lower performance

46

Journal Pre-proof Figure 4: A Comprehensive Model of Newcomers’ Leadership Attributions

Long-term, sufficient conditions

Immediate, necessary conditions

Structural leadership

Investing newly unfulfilled

unfulfilled

retrograde conformance

unfulfilled

Leadership behavior

Investing newly unfulfilled

unfulfilled

newly unfulfilled

Refusing leadership

Tolerating leadership

Withdrawal/ Divesting

Confrontation

Withdrawal

= effect on leadership attribution

Leadership attribution

Investing

No foundation

= domain of leadership expectation

retrograde conformance

Interpersonal relationship retrograde conformance

Leadernewcomer relationship arises formally

= behavioral consequence

47

Journal Pre-proof Table 1: Key Topics in the Prototype Study Indicating Possible Unfulfilled Leadership Expectations Example student quotes

Example supervisor quotes

Social closeness or distance in the relationship “Well, I think it needs to be a kind of relationship that is somehow socially distant. If it’s too close to friendship, it is not always good.” (Student C)

“I prefer some kind of friendship. It should be more than just supervisor and subordinate.” (Supervisor A)

Perceived trust via delegation “He should delegate some responsibility to me without controlling me all the time. That much trust he should have, at least.” (Student A)

The supervisors made no statement in which they connected delegation to trust.

Recognizing and intervening during problems “He needs to have a sense of how you feel and if you have a problem.” (Student C)

“My door is always open. They can always come to me if there is a problem.” (Supervisor C)

Feedback situation and feedback frequency “It is important to receive a lot of feedback in between, otherwise the timespan is too long. You’ll wait six months to get to know where you stand. That is insufficient.” (Student F)

“They know that the right framing for this in the regular and official appointments. This is why we have them. These informal talks are only good for factual issues such as customers, etcetera.” (Supervisor C)

48

Journal Pre-proof

Table 2: Example Quotes from Leadership Expectations Aggregated dimension and corresponding second-order themes

the

Dyad

Study

Focusing

on

Unfulfilled

Example quotes

Structural leadership – working conditions

“Every number, every sale is recorded on the board and written down, visible for everyone in the team. So, like I said, this pressure every day is tough, yes, very challenging.” (A Interview 1) “If you simply promote an open culture, open communication in the work group, then of course you also ensure that people can act proactively. If you do something proactive and are then encouraged that what you are doing is good, then of course it encourages proactivity. Whereas if my boss says, ‘Okay, why did you do this?’, of course, that is exactly the opposite.” (D Interview 1)

Structural leadership – integration

“I think that a leader always plays a very big role in somehow integrating these new team members. And I have not experienced this so far.” (A Interview 1)

Leadership behaviors – feedback

“So, I think a boss has to register and reflect very good performance. And I think if you make a big mistake, then you have to be made aware of it with, yes, maybe such a way that you can do it better.” (I Interview 1)

Leadership behaviors – delegation

“And then I really thought that that’s not what you were hired for, you don’t want to do that (…) I found it very boring. So, I need a certain amount of personal responsibility to be able to design tasks myself.” (G Interview 1)

Leadership behaviors – proactiveness

“I think it is part of being a leader to recognize such conflicts on his own, even if they are not brought up to him directly. You need to notice that and immediately take counter action.” (B Interview 2)

Leadership behaviors – communication

“At other times, if you recall what happened was that I wrote some documents and they were trashed. I mean, even my backup copy was deleted because it was stored in a shared folder on a server. (...) And they didn’t even tell me!” (C Interview 2)

Interpersonal relationship – accessibility

“Also, it can happen, he comes here, he works the whole day in his room and we never talk basically.” (C Interview 1)

Interpersonal relationship – trust

“Trust too. (…) or that it also suggests that you are trusted.” (F Interview 1)

Interpersonal relationship – relationship behavior

“We have a good relationship. But sometimes I would just like it to be a little bit more friendly and so.” (E Interview 1)

Structural leadership – pressure

49

Journal Pre-proof

Table 3: Example Quotes from the Dyad Study Focusing on Behavioral Consequences

Aggregated dimension and corresponding second-order themes

Example quotes

Investing – acceptance

“(…) because I just put up with it and said, well, next year I'll do it differently, right?” (I Interview 1)

Investing – higher efforts

“Well, I tried to talk about it. I really approached him straightforwardly and tried everything to find a solution.” (B Interview 1)

Confrontation – defiance

“And in case of doubt you have to go through the hierarchy levels. I would do the same in certain situations.” (E Interview 2)

Confrontation – lack of support

“But I just learned for myself that it is not right how it works. And I don't want to support the whole thing there either. So because I don't feel comfortable when I know I'm doing something that's actually not right, just because the boss says so. And I don't want to be subordinated to that.” (G Interview 1)

Confrontation – alienation

“So, in principle, you just don't express yourself anymore, you just leave it like that.” (A Interview 1)

Withdrawal – exit

“Exactly, no matter what comes, so I would rather say, then I quit the job at the current position.” (B Interview 2)

Withdrawal – lower performance

“And then I can really say that in the end my performance was no longer what it could have been (…) because I didn't really care at that point.” (A Interview 2)

50