Page 190 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J
P. 190

Leading Small Groups: Theoretical Perspectives        173

                     Designated leaders greatly affect small groups.




















                    ©LuckyImages/Shutterstock








                        In Stage 2, the members who remain under consideration are supported by other
                     members. In Figure 7.1, A and C are still in contention; B and D have backed out of
                     contention but support A and C as lieutenants, thereby forming two coalitions. Stage 2
                     can be lengthy, with verbal sparring typical. Eventually, one contender fails at his or
                     her bid for leadership and drops out. The candidate who falls out of contention is
                     usually seen as too directive (bossy) or offensive to the others (e.g., talks too much or
                     is manipulative). 11
                        In Figure 7.1 Stage 3, C has fallen out and A has emerged as leader, but this may
                     shift. For example, A may be a poor leader and E, B, or D may decide to support
                     someone else.
                        There are several common variations to Fisher’s model. One person may quickly
                     secure a lieutenant, with the rest of the group falling into line. Sometimes, an early
                     leader is inadequate in some way and is deposed, throwing the group back into
                     Stage 2. Two final contenders may cooperate as co-leaders, bypassing Stage 3.
                        While Fisher’s model describes general processes, it does not explain who will
                     emerge. Several personal characteristics have been linked to leadership emergence,
                     including self-monitoring, verbal style, gender, and task-oriented communication.

                     Personal Characteristics of Emergent Leaders Self-monitoring, discussed in Chapter 5,
                     is associated with emergent leadership. Self-monitoring refers to individuals’ abilities to
                                                      12
                     monitor social cues and adapt their actions.  High self-monitors are sensitive to contex-
                     tual cues, socially perceptive, and able to respond flexibly according to what seems
                     needed at any given time. Zaccaro et al. found that more than half the variance of lead-
                                                              13
                     ership emergence was explained by self-monitoring.  Ellis and Cronshaw found that








          gal37018_ch07_169_196.indd   173                                                              3/28/18   12:36 PM
   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195