Introduction and the Main Aim of the Article

Although leadership research has traditionally focused on formal supervisors, modern

approaches acknowledge that leadership is not tied to individuals' formal hierarchical positioning
(Hanna et al., 2021). In work teams, for example, individual members without official authority
may emerge into informal leader roles, such that teammates perceive them as leader-like and
acknowledge their influence (Acton et al., 2019; Taggar et al., 1999). Studies have shown that
team pro-cesses and performance may markedly benefit if formal supervisors succeed in
stimulating such informal leader emergence among their teams' members (see Hanna et al., 2021,
for a review). To achieve this, it seems logical that formal supervisors may try to encourage
individual team members' engagement in behaviors that elicit others' informal leadership
perceptions. Decades of research have shown, in particular, that a focal member is more likely to
emerge as an informal leader to the extent that he or she (a) promotes team task accomplishment
by initiating structure and/or (b) facilitates member well-being and positive relations through
consideration behavior (e.g., Ellis, 1988; Hanna et al., 2021).1 Moreover, social learning theory
(Bandura, 1977, 1986) suggests a supervisor's role modeling as a straightforward means of
triggering such behavior among members. From this perspective, a formal supervisor may serve
as a powerful behavioral role model that motivates individual members to emulate his or her
actions (Mayer et al., 2009; Wellman et al., 2019).
Hence, one might expect that supervisors can promote informal leader emergence among their
teams' individual members by demonstrating initiating structure and consideration themselves
and, thus, evoking similar behaviors among members.
Although intuitive, however, it is important to note that this rationale is likely to be overly
simplistic. After all, prior research has shown pronounced differences both in individual
supervisors' ability to influence their team members (Buengeler et al., 2016; Triana et al., 2017)
and in individual members' susceptibility toward supervisory influence (Rank et al., 2009;
Wellman et al., 2019). Social learning theory supports this notion, arguing that processes of
behavioral mimicry hinge on both a potential role models and an observer's characteristics
(Bandura, 1977, 1986; Downes et al., 2021). Hence, different supervisors' initiating structure and
consideration may yield strikingly different consequences for their individual members'
respective behaviors, depending on attributes of both the supervisor enacting this behavior and
the member targeted with it. Without considering such boundary conditions, our understanding
of formal supervisors' role in shaping individual members' emergence as informal leaders
remains unrealistic and incomplete. The present study addresses this issue. Further drawing from
social learning theory, in particular, we cast both a supervisor's and an individual member's
status in the team (i.e., their amount of respect, prestige, and esteem among the team's members;
Magee & Galinsky, 2008) as key boundary conditions. This theoretical perspective suggests that
status considerations profoundly affect role modeling processes (Bandura, 1986; Bandura et al.,
1963). On the one hand, a potential role model's (e.g., a supervisor's) status within a relevant
group should influence the degree to which observers perceive this individual's behavior as
worthy of imitation (Bandura, 1977; Weiss, 1977). And on the other hand, an observer's (e.g., a
member's) status should alter his or her receptivity to others' role modeling (Bandura, 1977;
Morgenroth et al., 2015). Hence, if we are to more fully understand how a formal supervisor's
leadership behavior shapes individual team members' respective behavior and, in turn, their
emergence as informal leaders, it is pivotal to account for these key contingency factors.
Nevertheless, we are not aware of previous empirical studies that have incorporated such status
aspects when examining formal–informal leadership linkages. As depicted in Figure 1, our
conceptual model therefore positions both supervisor and member status in the team as crucial
moderators for the indirect relationships between a supervisor's initiating structure and
consideration, on the one hand, and a member's informal leader emergence, on the other, as
transferred by the member's initiating structure and consideration. We examine this model in a
field study of 220 members across 48 patient care teams. By doing so, we aim to provide new,
more comprehensive knowledge on how formal supervisors may advance their individual team
members' attainment of informal leader roles.
We illustrate that supervisors may use rather common types of leadership behavior (i.e.,
initiating structure and consideration; Judge et al., 2004) to encourage similar behaviors among
members and, thus, to stimulate members' informal leadership. Crucially, we highlight
supervisors' as well as members' status in the team as decisive, yet heretofore unexamined
boundary conditions for these linkages. By integrating these status considerations, we offer a
fresh, theory driven explanation for (a) why different supervisors' behaviors may more or less
strongly shape their members' informal leader emergence and (b) why different members'
informal leader emergence may more or less strongly hinge on a formal supervisor's behavior.
More generally, our conditional indirect effects model extends previous research on trickle-down
processes in organizations (Wo et al., 2019) and addresses scholarly calls for a more integrative
perspective on formal and informal leadership (Chui et al., 2021; Morgeson et al., 2010),
illustrating how, why, and when a formal supervisors' actions may aid individual members'
emergence into informal leader roles.

Teams can benefit markedly when formal supervisors stimulate their individual members'
emergence as informal leaders. Combining insights from informal leadership research and social
learning theory, we cast supervisors' role modeling of initiating structure and consideration
behaviors as seemingly straightforward means of achieving this—but we suggest that the success
of such role modeling critically hinges on supervisors' as well as members' status in the team.
Results from a study of 220 nurses across 48 teams showed, accordingly, that a supervisor's
initiating structure promoted individual members' informal leader emergence by increasing
members' respective behavior. This indirect relationship only materialized, however, among
relatively high-status supervisors and relatively low-status members. Moreover, although
supervisors' and members' consideration were positively related (among relatively high-status
supervisors and largely irrespective of a member's status), such behavior did not influence
members' emergence as informal leaders. Together, these findings offer novel insights into how,
when, and why formal supervisors may aid their team members' attainment of informal leader
roles. They shed new light on the complexity of formal–informal leadership linkages, with both
supervisors' and members' standing in the team representing crucial, yet heretofore largely
unexamined boundary conditions for formal supervisors' respective influence.