The Value of Speaking for “Us”: the Relationship Between CEOs’ Use of I- and We-Referencing Language and Subsequent Organizational Performance

Abstract

CEOs have been argued to play a critical role for organizational performance. However, CEOs cannot achieve success singlehandedly. They rely on other organizational members to execute and implement their agenda and to contribute to organizational success. In the present research, we propose that CEOs serve as identity leaders of their organization who are able to enhance organizational performance by representing and cultivating a sense of shared collective identity ("us") with those they lead. One way for leaders to do so is through the use of we-referencing (as opposed to I-referencing) language. We examine this idea in a pre-registered study of organizations listed in the DAX (i.e., leading German stock index) between 2000 and 2016, assessing the impact of CEOs' use of we-and I-referencing language in letters to the stakeholders (N = 378) on objective indicators of organizational financial performance. In line with hypotheses, results show a positive relationship between CEOs' use of we-referencing language and key indicators of financial performance: return on assets and sales per employee (while there was no evidence of an association with return on sales). At the same time, results indicate that the use of I-referencing language was unrelated to organizational performance. These findings advance the literature on strategic leadership and on the social identity approach to leadership by suggesting that CEOs' thinking and acting in collective terms is associated with greater organizational financial performance. Keywords CEO leadership. Identity entrepreneurship. Financial performance. Social identity approach to leadership. We-referencing language. Linear mixed-modeling The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say 'I'. And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say 'I'. They do not think 'I'. They think 'team'. They understand their job to be to make the team function… There is an identification (very often quite unconsciously) with the task and with the group. (Drucker 1992, p. 14). CEOs are the figureheads of their organization. Their choices and behaviors have been argued to be critical for the performance of organizational members and the organization as a whole (Boal and Hooijberg 2001; Finkelstein et al. 2009; Hambrick and Mason 1984). Although CEOs have direct influence on strategic decisions (e.g., acquisitions), they rely on other organizational members to execute and implement their agenda. Accordingly, without the engagement and support of followers, CEOs' visions and goals will count for little because they will not be translated into material reality (Bennis 1999; Haslam and Platow 2001). In simple terms, this is Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Subgroup Formation in Diverse Virtual Teams: The Moderating Role of Identity Leadership

“…Based on these results, primary conclusions can be drawn that identity leadership appears to be effective in preventing the perception of subgroups in teams where the team members perceive differences to be highly present, promoting satisfaction with the work team, and leading to higher perceived performance. It thus extends previous studies showing that leaders who foster a shared feeling of what “we” stand for by acting as a role model for the team, advancing the group’s interests, and building and providing opportunities to live out the shared identity, are not only critical for positive outcomes in traditional work settings (e.g., Fladerer et al, 2021 ). They also appear to be important in teams in which team members collaborate primarily through ICT and rarely meet face-to-face due to geographic dispersion.…”

“…However, it remains unclear whether these tactics are also perceived by team members as promoting identity and in what way these tactics are associated with virtual team performance. Previous research has shown that, for example, we-referencing language ( Fladerer et al, 2021 ) or the leader’s team confidence ( Fransen et al, 2016 ) are associated with performance outcomes. This investigation of leadership behavior or action should be extended to the technology-mediated environment to gain a better understanding of how a shared identity can be established despite more challenging conditions for engaging in shared activities or the reduced presence of social cues.…”

An Exploration of Co-Workers’ Group Identification as Moderator of the Leadership-Health Link

“…An important implication of the SIA-L is that social identities as a resource can be actively managed (e.g., Fladerer, Steffens, & Haslam, 2021; Haslam et al, 2011; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001). This point is underscored by a growing number of studies that point to the tangible benefits that flow from leaders’ rhetoric and actions, which help to develop and maintain a shared social identity among those they seek to lead (Fladerer, Haslam, et al, 2021; Fransen et al, 2015; Steffens & Haslam, 2013). For example, Slater et al (2018) showcased in three experimental studies that a strong identification with a group leader facilitated followers’ mobilization for a group task and also followers’ psychophysiological adaption to stressors (measured as objective cardiovascular stress reactivity indicators) under pressure.…”

How Identification With the Social Environment and With the Government Guide the Use of the Official COVID-19 Contact Tracing App: Three Quantitative Survey Studies

“…One example is to report more about “collective success” (eg, in fighting the pandemic; see related research on collective pride [ 47 ]). A second example is via governmental leaders engaging in identity leadership (creating a shared sense of “us” [ 48 - 50 ]) or politicians using consensual communication and/or “we”-referencing language (ie, referring more to “we,” “us,” and “ours,” suggesting that they see themselves and act as “our leaders” [ 51 , 52 ]).…”