When contesting for political office, leaders do not only seek to build their own following but also to engage in attacks to destabilize opponent leaders. However, research has yet to explore and explain the nature of attacks that seek to destabilize a leader's influence. Building on the identity leadership model which sees leadership as flowing from a leader's capacity to promote a sense of shared identity with followers, we argue that a leader can be destabilized if followers come to see the leader as defiling, devaluing, dividing, and destroying this shared sense of “us.” To explore these ideas, we analyzed the attack rhetoric used by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 U.S. presidential debates to examine how they sought to subvert each other's leadership. Our analysis supports the proposed model and sheds light on the hitherto underexplored topic of leadership destabilization. Moreover, by helping us understand the ways in which principles of identity leadership can be weaponized to destabilize leadership, the analysis defines an important agenda for future research.
Do leaders who build a sense of shared social identity in their teams thereby protect them from the adverse effects of workplace stress? This is a question that the present paper explores by testing the hypothesis that identity leadership contributes to stronger team identification among employees and, through this, is associated with reduced burnout. We tested this model with unique datasets from the Global Identity Leadership Development (GILD) project with participants from all inhabited continents. We compared two datasets from 2016/2017 (n = 5290; 20 countries) and 2020/2021 (n = 7294; 28 countries) and found very similar levels of identity leadership, team identification and burnout across the five years. An inspection of the 2020/2021 data at the onset of and later in the COVID-19 pandemic showed stable identity leadership levels and slightly higher levels of both burnout and team identification. Supporting our hypotheses, we found almost identical indirect effects (2016/2017, b = −0.132; 2020/2021, b = −0.133) across the five-year span in both datasets. Using a subset of n = 111 German participants surveyed over two waves, we found the indirect effect confirmed over time with identity leadership (at T1) predicting team identification and, in turn, burnout, three months later. Finally, we explored whether there could be a “too-much-of-a-good-thing” effect for identity leadership. Speaking against this, we found a u-shaped quadratic effect whereby ratings of identity leadership at the upper end of the distribution were related to even stronger team identification and a stronger indirect effect on reduced burnout.
Having access to the “secrets” of leadership promises to be immensely valuable to those wishing to lead. But what are these “secrets”? In this study, we examined the types of non-academic theorizing (communicated as leadership “secrets”) that writings for a general audience convey. A content analysis of 131 commercial books on leadership “secrets” revealed seven major “secrets” that pertained to (1) knowledge and learning, (2) habits, behaviors, and practices, (3) handling failure, challenges, and struggle, (4) personal inspiration, drive, and motivation, (5) team, group, and organizational strategy, (6) choices and decisions, and (7) communication skills. Intriguingly, the prevalence of leadership “secrets” varied in a cyclical pattern across time such that some “secrets” lost prominence in one period only to reemerge in another. We also observed a considerable degree of correspondence between the foci of topics in these commercial outlets and the foci of academic publications. JEL Classification: J24, O15, M12
In this registered report, we examined the effect of transgressions committed by leaders working at different group levels within an organization on employee outcomes. Based on social identity theorizing, we argued that organizational leader transgressions would affect organizational members’ experiences only at the organizational level, but that workgroup leader transgressions would impact organizational members’ experiences at both workgroup and organizational levels. To test these ideas, we developed a 2 (leader group affiliation: workgroup vs. organizational) × 2 (leader behaviour: normative vs. transgressive) between‐subjects experimental paradigm. As hypothesized, both workgroup and organizational leader transgressions resulted in decreased organizational identification and perceived organizational leader effectiveness. Contrary to our prediction, transgressions of both workgroup and organizational leaders were similarly detrimental to workers’ workgroup identification. However, as predicted, a transgressive workgroup leader had a greater negative impact on perceived workgroup leader effectiveness than a transgressive organizational leader. When outliers were excluded, a workgroup leader’s transgression was found to be more detrimental to work performance than an organizational leader’s transgression. Overall, this study demonstrates that the transgressions of lower‐level workgroup leaders can be as detrimental – and in some cases more detrimental – to workers than the transgressions of higher‐level organizational leaders.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.