Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations.

Abstract

Two studies tested the prediction that people who identify strongly with a group base leadership perceptions on the group prototypicality of the leader whereas leadership schemas diminish in importance. Leadership and prototypicality were operationalized as relational constructs grounded in people's salient social comparative frame of reference. Study 1 (N = 82) had participants nominate a group leader and measured perceptions of the leader relative to nonleaders on leadership effectiveness, group prototypicality, and leadership stereotypicality. In Study 2 (N = 164) prototypicality, stereotypicality, and group salience were experimentally manipulated. As predicted, leadership stereotypicality became a weaker basis for leadership among high identifiers. The role of prototypicality in leadership was complexly affected by identification, which (a) accentuated leader-follower similarity on perceived prototypicality and leadership effectiveness, (b) changed the salient frame of reference, and (c) thus changed relative prototypicality of group members and leadership perceptions.Where there are groups there are leaders. The ubiquity and social relevance of leadership has placed the study of leadership high on the agenda for social psychology (e.g.,

Leader Self-Sacrifice and Leadership Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Leader Prototypicality.

“…This analysis suggests that a leader's prototypicality of the group in particular should be tied to leadership effectiveness because individuals that are more representative of the group are more influential and attractive (Hogg, 1992;van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994). 1 The proposition that leader prototypicality is a determinant of leadership effectiveness is supported by an increasing number of studies showing, for instance, that prototypical group members are more likely to emerge as leaders (Fielding & Hogg, 1997;van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000) and that groupprototypical leaders are more influential and effective (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997;Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998;Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001;Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2002;. Evidence for the importance of leader prototypicality for leader effectiveness and emergence was found in studies using different paradigms, different operationalizations of prototypicality, and different measures of leadership effectiveness.…”

Motivating Individuals and Groups at Work: A Social Identity Perspective on Leadership and Group Performance

“…A crucial concern here is the extent to which a (prospective) leader is seen to represent the group's distinct identity-that is, the extent to which the leader is perceived as prototypical for the group. However, a social identity approach also implies that the perceived prototypicality of a leader is context dependent (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998). In other words, depending on other groups present in the situation and the ways in which the ingroup is distinct from those particular outgroups, members may come to see different properties as prototypical for the group and, hence, desirable for the group leader ).…”

The Emotion of Admiration Improves Employees’ Goal Orientations and Contextual Performance

“…A decade later, cognitive models of leadership stressed the centrality of leader legit imacy -which direct ly depends on followers' perceptions of leader co mpetence-in understanding the bases of leadership effectiveness (see [14,15]). Even the application of social identity theory to leadership perception [16] confirms the tendency of follo wers to value leaders who show task-relevant co mpetence and embody group values. Lastly, research on charis matic and transformat ional leadership considers leader competence and trustworthiness to be at the root of the influential power of leaders [17][18].…”