Relative contribution of peer leaders and formal leaders on outcomes
After the analyses we did for either formal leadership roles or peer leadership roles separately, we were also interested in investigating their relative contribution to the different outcomes. These subsequent analyses incorporate both types of leadership.
Given that not all participants completed both sets of questions relating to the formal and peer leadership roles, we could only use a limited subset of participants that did opt to complete both. Specifically, we could include 397 participants in our analyses.
We tested linear regression models to examine to what extent the average perceived leadership quality of both formal and peer leaders (across all roles) predicted the different outcomes. The graph below presents the results for team identification. The figures also show the strength of the relationships when only including the data of research teams and ATP-teams, respectively. The other groups (board teams and POC’s) were not included given that their sample size was too low to produce reliable results.
The significance levels are set at * p < .05, ** p < .01, and *** p < .001.
Relative contribution on team identification
Relative contribution on job satisfaction
Relative contribution on work engagement
Relative contribution on team cohesion
Relative contribution on organizational citizenship behaviour
Relative contribution on team effectiveness
These linear regression models reveal that both formal leaders and peer leaders add unique contributions to each of the outcomes. Regarding team identification, team cohesion, and organizational citizenship behaviour, peer leaders have a larger impact, both in research teams and ATP-teams. For work engagement, peer leaders have a greater contribution in research teams, while formal leaders have a greater contribution in ATP-teams. The reverse is true for job satisfaction. In terms of team effectiveness, the contributions of both leaders are similar in research teams, but within ATP-teams, the contribution of peer leaders is noticeably greater.
Controlling these effects for moderators
In order to examine if the effects observed in the previous models were influenced by other factors, we investigated the moderating effects of the following variables:
- Age
- Gender
- Team size
- Team tenure
- The amount of face to face versus digital contact with the formal leader
- The amount of face to face versus digital contact with individual team members
- The amount of face to face versus digital contact with the entire team
To ensure an adequate sample size, we tested the potential moderation effects separately for formal leadership roles and peer leadership roles. This allowed us to include all participants who completed the questionnaire for either formal or peer leaders, rather than only a subset who responded to both sections.
First, we assessed whether the direct effects of perceived leadership quality for either formal leadership roles or peer leadership roles changed after including all moderators as predictors. Neither the formal leadership roles nor the peer leadership roles lost their significance as direct predictors for any of the outcomes in the models that included each of the moderators.
Next, we explored the relationship between the quality of leadership roles and the moderators by testing models that included either perceived quality of formal leadership roles or perceived quality of peer leadership roles, along with the moderators as predictors and their interaction effects with the perceived leadership quality. Based on these findings, we made the following conclusions:
- Gender, team tenure, team size, and the amount of face-to-face contact versus digital contact with either the formal leader or team members (both individuals or the entire team) did not significantly affect the impact of perceived leadership quality on any of the outcomes (i.e., team identification, job satisfaction, work engagement, team cohesion, organizational citizenship behaviour, or team effectiveness).
- Age showed one small negative interaction effect, indicating that for work engagement, the impact of perceived leadership quality of peer leaders decreases slightly as one's age increases (β = -.09). No other significant interaction effects were found for age.
Overall, we can conclude that the findings from the previously shown regression models were generally unaffected by the moderators mentioned above, with the exception that older individuals appeared to be a little less influenced by the leadership quality of their peers in terms of work engagement. However, no other age-related effects were found.