Individual perceptions of leadership emergence in the B2B sector and its impact on perceived team sales performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of selection of empirical research.

Table 1. Selected studies on leadership emergence.

Authors	Data	Method	Moderators	Outcomes	Team Selling	B2B data	Summary
DeRue, Nahrgang, and Ashford (2015) – OS	MBA students (US) gathered in consulting teams N = 255	Online survey Path model	✓	✗	✗	✗	Members who view their group as warm identify more strongly with the group and contribute more leadership.
Zhang, Waldman, and Wang (2012) – PP	Chinese IT provider with employees from customer service N = 416	Survey Multisource and longitudinal data Multi-level path model	✓	✓	✗	✗	Authors find that a shared vision within the team strengthens leader emergence and this in turn has a positive effect on individual and team performance.
Charlier et al. (2016) – LQ	Undergraduate business students N = 340 students	Field experiment Multi-level path model	✓	✗	✗	✗	Team members’ communication skills have a direct effect on LE while the team’s dispersion shows a moderating effect.
Cogliser et al. (2012) – GOM	Undergraduate business students N = 243 students	Survey Longitudinal data Path model	✗	✓	✗	✗	Authors show a significant effect of task-oriented and a non-significant effect of social-oriented leadership behavior on team member’s performance contribution.
Hu et al. (2019) – JAP	Salespeople from 79 retail stores N = 337	Survey Path model	✓	✗	✓	✗	U-shaped relationships between assertiveness and advice seeking by peers, and between warmth and peer liking. Advice seeking by peers and peer liking, in turn, are positively related to LE.
Present study	Sales team members from an industrial company; Objective transaction data collected during survey period N = 185	Online survey Transaction data Regression model	✓	✓	✓	✓	Results show a direct positive effect of individual perceptions of LE on PTSP. This effect strongly depends on perceived CD and CI.

Notes: GOM Group & Organization Management, JAP Journal of Applied Psychology, LQ Leadership Quarterly, OS Organization Science, PP Personnel Psychology.

Figure 2. Moderator selection framework & conceptual framework.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Main Variable	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7	V8	V9	V10
V1: Individual Perceptions of Leadership Emergence
V2: Customer Demandingness	.069
V3: Competitive Intensity	−0.111	.237*
V4: Perceived Team Sales Performance	.237*	.210*	.064
Controls
V5: Between Team Outcome Interdependence	.106	.377*	.216*	.251*
V6: Effort-reward Unfairness	−0.214*	−0.060	.161*	−0.047	−0.132
V7: Extrinsic Motivation	.046	−0.071	.219*	.112	.030	.179*
V8: Sales Team Solution Involvement	.079	.326*	.078	.497*	.492*	−0.029	.160*
V9: Standardization of Buying Process	.004	.018	.150*	.034	.053	−0.011	.104	.042
V10: Salesperson Experience Level	−0.132*	.147*	.048	.055	.046	.081	−0.053	−0.022	.006
Mean	5.19	5.96	5.85	5.22	5.64	4.13	3.38	5.58	4.08	3.62
Standard deviation	1.17	.95	.90	1.09	1.03	1.40	1.33	1.02	1.26	1.10
Cronbach’s alpha (α)	.87	.85	.87	.90	.79	.89	.80	.89	.76	—^b
Composite reliability	.88	.86	.88	.90	.80	.89	.81	.90	.78	—^b
Average variance extracted	.70	.60	.71	.75	.56	.67	.60	.69	.54	—^b
Variance inflation factor	1.34	1.50	1.36	—^a	1.80	1.21	1.33	1.81	1.20	1.28

Table 3. Model hypotheses and results.

Path		Hypothesis	Model 1: Main effects model		Model 2: No controls model		Model 3: Full model
Main Effects
IPLE	→ PTSP	H1: +	.22***	(.06)	.22***	(.07)	.19**	(.07)
CD	→ PTSP		.24***	(.08)	.21**	(.09)	.02	(.08)
CI	→ PTSP		.07	(.11)	.10	(.09)	.09	(.09)
Contingent effects
IPLE x CD	→ PTSP	H2: +	-		.17**	(.07)	.18*	(.10)
IPLE x CI	→ PTSP	H3: +	-		−0.19**	(.08)	−0.18**	(.09)
Controlled effects
Between Team Outcome Interdependence	→ PTSP		-		-		.02	(.09)
Effort-reward Unfairness	→ PTSP		-		-		−0.01	(.05)
Extrinsic Motivation	→ PTSP		-		-		.05	(.09)
Sales Team Solution Involvement	→ PTSP		-		-		.48***	(.10)
Standardization of Buying Process	→ PTSP		-		-		−0.01	(.07)
Salesperson Experience Level	→ PTSP		-		-		.06	(.07)
Subsidiary Dummies	→ PTSP		-		-		Included	Included
Model Fit
R^2			.15***		.19***		.35***

* p < .1.

** p < .05.

*** p < .01 (two-tailed); we report standardized coefficients; we report standard errors in parentheses; ^a based on the confirmatory factor analysis.

Figure 3. Interaction plots.

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01, ^n.s. not significant (p > .10) (two-tailed).

Notes: We report unstandardized coefficients. High/low moderator values reflect +/- 1.0 standard deviations from the mean value.

Table 4. Interviews with salespeople on CI moderation.

Salesperson 1	‘The pressure associated with increasing customer requirements can be countered with personal interaction and thus dampened. However, if the intensity of competition in the market environment increases, it is less easy for sales teams to do anything about it. The pressure – not just on the implicit manager – but on the entire team increases, meaning that implicit structures are more likely to be challenged and ‘break down’ or reorganize under pressure’.
Salesperson 2	‘Occasionally I get the impression that as soon as our biggest competitor is involved in the project, the team wants to back up every decision. Especially when it comes to pricing, no one dares to take cover. By then, the sales manager is generally always involved which can take much time’.
Salesperson 3	‘In general, we are free to make many decisions. Our line management explicitly wants us to be able to react quickly in customer projects and drive decisions forward, especially when it comes to customer requirements in the system configuration. Only when it comes to pricing have we received very clear instructions to do an extra round if we fall below certain approval limits’.
Salesperson 4	‘When the intensity of competition is very high, resource allocation battles take place in many companies, as there is a greater need to rationalize and defend why financial and time budgets (heads on projects) flow into certain measures. Under these circumstances, emergent leaders may have less formal authority to solicit time and financial resources’. ‘On the other hand, there could also be a tendency to rely on ‘tried and tested measures and claim owners’, so that an internal barrier to trusting the emergent leader and ‘new ideas associated with a higher risk’ could also reduce its effectiveness on sales performance’. ‘In addition, an emergent leader could signal unclear leadership to date, which could reduce performance in an intensely competitive environment that requires a stringent effective leadership strategy’.
Salesperson 5	‘When the competitive situation in the market is really high or has suddenly changed due to various factors you or the company cannot control, you are drawn to leaders that actually can make a difference and decide upon the strategy the own company or sales team will go for. This creates a feeling of security or maybe just the possibility to blame someone else if the strategy turns out to be wrong and sales losses are unavoidable’.
Salesperson 6	‘When CI is high, implicit leaders can feel strong uncertainty about making the wrong decision. This insecurity can be seen in their behavior toward other team members, which leads to their authority being undermined or not being taken seriously. In a high CI environment, small decisions can have a big impact, leading to this high level of psychological insecurity. Maybe the leader also shows some kind of avoidance behavior or abdication of responsibility to the team, which leads to the others taking responsibility because they recognize this’.

Table

Construct	Measurement Items*	Stand. factor loadings (Lambda)	Source
Individual Perceptions of Leadership Emergence	What influence did this member have in determining the final outcome of the task? How much leadership does this person have in your team? How much control did this person have over the group’s activities?	.76 .90 .85	Foti and Hauenstein 2007 and Lord, Foti, and De Vader 1984
Customer Demandingness	The customers we serve are demanding in terms of product quality and reliability. Our customers have high expectations in terms of service and support. Our customers need a perfect match between their needs and our offerings. Our customers expect from us to offer the highest product and service quality.	.67 .81 .81 .81	Wang and Netemeyer 2002
Competitive Intensity	Competition in our market is fierce. There are many price wars in our market. You often hear of competition in our market.	.84 .93 .74	Chan et al. 2012 and Jaworski and Kohli 1993
Perceived Team Sales Performance	The results of my team always meet the highest requirements. My team’s work so far has always been excellent. The results of my team are outstanding.	.82 .85 .93	Lambe, Webb, and Ishida 2009 and Schmitz, Lee, and Lilien 2014
Between-Team Outcome Interdependence	It benefits me when other teams at [company name] achieve their goals. The things that other teams at [company name] want to achieve and the things that my team wants to achieve are compatible. It is an advantage for us if other teams work successfully at [company name].	.74 .72 .78	Van Der Vegt, Emans, and Van De Vliert 1998
Effort-reward Unfairness	I work too hard for the pay I get. I devote a lot of time and attention to [company name] but receive little appreciation. I invest more in my job than I get for it. My workload is greater than the reward I receive.	.80 .74 .88 .84	Janssen 2001
Extrinsic Motivation	I wouldn’t be working in a sales environment if there wasn’t a lot of money to be made there. I work in the sales environment because I get paid for it. I realize more often that I wouldn’t do this job if it wasn’t so well paid.	.72 .68 .90	Oliver and Anderson 1994
Sales Team Solution Involvement	My team has a deep understanding of customers’ needs and how to solve their problems. My team has a deep understanding of the goals our customer is pursuing with the solution. My team asks the right questions to identify the need for the customer solution. My team has a deep understanding of the products and services a customer buys as a total solution from [company name].	.90 .90 .81 .68	Panagopoulos, Rapp, and Ogilvie 2017
Standardization of Buying Process	The procurement process as well as the individual steps in the purchasing process of our customers always follow the same pattern. The individual players involved in the purchasing process of our customers are always the same. The procurement process of our customers is very clearly structured.	.83 .79 .56	Christmann 2004

All items are measured on seven-point Likert scales anchored ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’ except for the items that measure individual perceptions of leadership emergence. These items are measured on a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating ‘none at all’ and 7 indicating ‘extraordinary’.

DeRue, D. Scott, Jennifer D. Nahrgang, and Susan J. Ashford. 2015. “Interpersonal Perceptions and the Emergence of Leadership Structures in Groups: A Network Perspective.” Organization Science 26 (4): 1192–209. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0963.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Zhen, David A. Waldman, and Zhen Wang. 2012. “A Multilevel Investigation of Leader–Member Exchange, Informal Leader Emergence, and Individual and Team Performance.” Personnel Psychology 65 (1): 49–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01238.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Charlier, Steven D., Greg L. Stewart, Lindsey M. Greco, and Cody J. Reeves. 2016. “Emergent Leadership in Virtual Teams: A Multilevel Investigation of Individual Communication and Team Dispersion Antecedents.” The Leadership Quarterly 27 (5): 745–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.05.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cogliser, Claudia C., William L. Gardner, Mark B. Gavin, and J. Christian Broberg. 2012. “Big Five Personality Factors and Leader Emergence in Virtual Teams: Relationships with Team Trustworthiness, Member Performance Contributions, and Team Performance.” Group & Organization Management 37 (6): 752–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112464266.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hu, Jia, Z. Zhang, K. Jiang, and W. Chen. 2019. “Getting Ahead, Getting along, and Getting Prosocial: Examining Extraversion Facets, Peer Reactions, and Leadership Emergence.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 104 (11): 1369–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000413.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Foti, Roseanne J., and Neil Hauenstein. 2007. “Pattern and Variable Approaches in Leadership Emergence and Effectiveness.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (2): 347–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.347.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lord, Robert G., Roseanne J. Foti, and Christy L. De Vader. 1984. “A Test of Leadership Categorization Theory: Internal Structure, Information Processing, and Leadership Perceptions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34 (3): 343–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chan, Ricky Y., Hongwei He, Hing K. Chan, and William Y. C. Wang. 2012. “Environmental Orientation and Corporate Performance: The Mediation Mechanism of Green Supply Chain Management and Moderating Effect of CI.” Industrial Marketing Management 41 (4): 621–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.04.009.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jaworski, Bernard, and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Marketing 57 (3): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700304.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lambe, C. Jay., Kevin L. Webb, and Chiharu Ishida. 2009. “Self-Managing Selling Teams and Team Performance: The Complementary Roles of Empowerment and Control.” Industrial Marketing Management 38 (1): 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.10.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schmitz, Christian, You-Cheong Lee, and Gary L. Lilien. 2014. “Cross-Selling Performance in Complex Selling Contexts: An Examination of Supervisory-and Compensation-Based Controls.” Journal of Marketing 78 (3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.12.0421.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Der Vegt, Gerben, Ben Emans, and Evert Van De Vliert. 1998. “Motivating Effects of Task and Outcome Interdependence in Work Teams.” Group & Organization Management 23 (2): 124–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198232003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Janssen, Onne. 2001. “Fairness Perceptions as a Moderator in the Curvilinear Relationships between Job Demands, and Job Performance and Job Satisfaction.” Academy of Management Journal 44 (5): 1039–50. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069447.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oliver, Richard L., and Erin Anderson. 1994. “An Empirical Test of the Consequences of Behavior-and Outcome-Based Sales Control Systems.” Journal of Marketing 58 (4): 53–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251916.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Panagopoulos, Nikolaos G., Adam A. Rapp, and Jessica L. Ogilvie. 2017. “Salesperson Solution Involvement and Sales Performance: The Contingent Role of Supplier Firm and Customer-Supplier Relationship Characteristics.” Journal of Marketing 81 (4): 144–64. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0342.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Christmann, Petra. 2004. “Multinational Companies and the Natural Environment: Determinants of Global Environmental Policy Standardization.” Academy of Management Journal 47 (5): 747–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159616.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar