Business & finance homework

Ace your studies with our custom writing services! We've got your back for top grades and timely submissions, so you can say goodbye to the stress. Trust us to get you there!

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

4 pages long 

Assignment : will be
a summary of a journal article on ethical leadership in on
in the Leadership Quarterly; .
You may pick any article you wish to summarize, but you may wish to select one published during the last 5 years. Leadership research is consistently changing, and more recent articles may represent the better, or more current, research in the long tenure of leadership study
. The name of the journal article, the author’s name, and publishing information, such as date and journal title, should be provided at the beginning of the paper. Provide a brief description of the research study and key findings. If it is a theoretical article, what is the key theory and the author’s major points? If it is an article describing the application of leadership in a particular setting, provide a brief description of the author and his/her main points. Your paper should be 4 pages long, typed double-spaced. Draw comparisons from Dr. Witherspoon’s lecture below in connection to the text.

I will attach pdf document of the text

MLSX 5351, Week 2 Mini-Lecture: Transformational Leadership and Its Focus on Moral Leadership

Dr. Witherspoon

The Evolution of Transformational Leadership Theory

Theories of leadership grow and change like the people who embody them. “The Great Man” theories in the late 1800s and the early decades of the 20th century suggested that history is shaped by great men, that the progress of societies has been due to actions of those endowed with superior traits. Dowd wrote in in 1936 that “there is no such thing as leadership by the masses. The individuals in every society possess different degrees of intelligence, energy, and moral force, and in whatever direction the masses may be influenced to go, they are always led by the superior few.” (As quoted in Burns, pp. 37-38) This work followed assertions that great men tended to be of royal blood; kings and their brothers (princes) were leaders based on inheritance. They became the men of power and influence in their societies. (Catherine the Great and Elizabeth I, were not included in those studied.) Of course, the findings of these “researchers” were based on the individuals they selected for study! If you are only going to study kings and princes, your findings are going to be embodied in kings and princes.

The “Great Man” theories morphed into trait theories of leadership, which encompass the notion that all leaders share certain traits. There is considerable trait research which shows that people who are regarded as leaders do share certain traits, e.g. are high energy, sociable, intelligent, friendly, etc. However, in great part due to battleground experiences witnessed by officers in the two World Wars, military commanders, psychologists, historians, etc. began to write during the 20th century that traits don’t guarantee leadership…that it is how one manifests or uses those traits as behaviors that evidences leadership. In other words, “leadership” is not saying you are a leader; it is what you do to show you are a leader. And so a host of behavioral theories emerged in the leadership literature, which spans multiple fields and academic disciplines.

The Initial Discussion of Transformational Leadership

In 1978, Dr. James MacGregor Burns published
Leadership, a book that was awarded both the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize. A historian and a political scientist, Burns already had written a two-volume biography about Franklin Roosevelt that received multiple awards, including those he received for
Leadership. He already had achieved acclaim for writing biographies of John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy and had authored a best-selling textbook on U. S. government and a volume on Congress. This book was different, however. It would be referred to over the next several decades beyond the fields of history and political science. His term, “transforming” or “transformational” leadership would be used by leadership scholars and practitioners. This mini-lecture uses several long quotations from the book itself, so you can see the author’s purpose and focus.

In the Prologue, Burns writes that he will focus on “transactional” and “transforming” leadership, beyond the notions of holding and wielding power. Transactional leadership is based on exchanges, e.g. paychecks for work, bonuses for extra hours of work, “jobs for votes, or subsidies for campaign contributions.” (p. 4) The transforming leader “looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents.”(p. 4) Burns goes beyond the transactional notion of leadership and suggests the importance of “moral leadership,” and this is the notion that would later be left out of the writings of scholars in a variety of fields. He explains three components of “moral leadership:” 1) “leaders and led have a relationship not only of power but of mutual needs, aspirations, and values;” 2) “followers have adequate knowledge of alternative leaders and programs and the capacity to choose among those alternatives,” and 3) “leaders take responsibility for their commitments—if they promise certain kinds of economic, social, and political change, they assume leadership in the bringing about of that change.”(Ibid.) He emphasizes that moral leadership is not “mere preaching, or the uttering of pieties,” but the kind of leadership that produces social change and satisfies followers’ authentic needs, a leadership that “emerges from, and always returns to, the fundamental wants and needs, aspirations, and values of the followers.” (Ibid.)

Burns’ discussion of leadership includes observations on a host of leaders, both evil and benevolent. Good people can be transactional leaders. Transformational leadership, he writes, is elevating and moral and lifts people into their better selves. It is change leadership that is significant and sustained and depends on the collective and interactive relationship between leaders and followers. “The most dramatic test in modern democracies of the power of leaders to elevate followers and of followers to sustain leaders was the civil rights struggle in the United States,” Burns writes. (p. 455) “The battle was won at lunch counters, on highways, in classrooms, in front of courthouses by followers who had become leaders. On the other side of the globe, the pacific and egalitarian values taught by Mohandas Gandhi were proving to be an elevating force in an even harsher struggle for social justice.” (p. 455-456). As we know, Burns’ words are optimistic; the civil rights struggle in the U. S. continues. He ends his book with a continuing focus on moral leadership: “Woodrow Wilson called for leaders who, by boldly interpreting the nation’s conscience, could lift a people out of their everyday selves. That people can be lifted
into their better selves is the secret of transforming leadership and the moral and practical theme of this work.”(p. 462)

The Effect of Different Voices on the Notion of Transformational Leadership

Since the publication of, and attention to, Burns’ honored work, business and management scholars have applied his notion of the leadership of change into their own notions of transformational leadership, focusing on it as a theory guiding significant organizational change. Their applications came at a time of growing interest in leadership studies as a field, in organizations as sites of leadership, and in business schools and other disciplines as places where leadership has been taught and studied, e.g. business, management, communication, healthcare, to name some academic areas. In the study of organizational leadership, Noel Tichy, John Kotter, Bruce Avolio and Bernard Bass were some of the first individuals within business/management who applied various concepts of Burns’ seminal work to the study of transformational leadership in organizational settings….leadership which they identified as facilitating major, dramatic organizational change.

“We call these new leaders transformational leaders, for they must create

something new out of something old; out of an old vision, they must develop and communicate a new vision and get others not only to see the vision but also to commit themselves to it. Where transactional managers make only minor adjustments in the organization’s mission, structure and human resource management, transformational leaders not only make major changes in these three areas but they also evoke fundamental changes in the basic political and culture systems of the organization.” (Tichy, p. 59)

By the mid-1980s, discussions of transformational leadership in organizations often omitted reference to moral leadership and began to focus on such leadership as central to major organizational change. The term is used quite freely now as a theory of leadership, some scholars also suggesting it as a style of leadership. James MacGregor Burns became an international figure in the study of leadership and would eventually have a center named after him at the University of Maryland. He would stay true to his concept of what transforming leadership is, until he died in 2014 at the age of 95.


Burns, J. M. (1978).
Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.

Dowd, J. (1936).
Control in human societies. New York: Appleton-Century.

Tichy, N. (Fall, 1984).
SMR Forum: The Leadership Challenge—A Call for the Transformational Leader.
Sloan Management Review.

Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework

S. Alexander Haslam1, Amber M. Gaffney2, Michael A. Hogg3,

David E. Rast III4, & Niklas K. Steffens1

1 School of Psychology, The University of Queensland

2 Department of Psychology, Humboldt State University

3 Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University

4 Psychology Department, University of Alberta

Corresponding author:

Alex Haslam, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072,

Australia; Tel: +61 (0)73346 7345; email: [email protected]

Accepted manuscript for publication in The Leadership Quarterly, Editorial of special issue

on Social Identity and Leadership:

Haslam, S. A., Gaffney, A. G., Hogg, M. A., Rast III, D. E., & Steffens, N. K. (2022).

Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework. The

Leadership Quarterly.

This is the accepted, non-corrected version of the article that may not exactly replicate the

final, printed version of the article.




Research exploring the powerful links between leadership and identity has burgeoned in

recent years but cohered around two distinct approaches. Research on identity leadership, the

main focus of this special issue, sees leadership as a group process that centers on leaders’

ability to represent, advance, create and embed a social identity that they share with the

collectives they lead —a sense of “us as a group”. Research on leader identity sees leadership

as a process that is advanced by individuals who have a well-developed personal

understanding of themselves as leaders—a sense of “me as a leader”. This article explores the

nature and implications of these divergent approaches, focusing on their specification of

profiles, processes, pathways, products, and philosophies that have distinct implications for

theory and practice. We formalize our observations in a series of propositions and also

outline a dual-identity framework with the potential to integrate the two approaches.

Key words: leader identity, identity leadership, social identity, self-categorization



Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework

Uncontroversially, leadership is customarily defined as the process through which one

or more members of a group influence other group members in a way that motivates them to

contribute to the achievement of group goals (Haslam et al., 2015, Hogg et al., 2012a; House

et al., 2002; Rost, 2008; van Knippenberg, 2012). Because it is essential for both social

progress and social change, leadership is highly prized and is an ongoing focus for academic

and public debate. Indeed, in fields as diverse as politics and religion, science and

technology, sport and adventure, industry and business, leadership is widely considered to be

the key process through which people are mobilized to work together to make history.

As it has evolved, this debate about leadership has seen many twists and turns and

many fads and fashions have come and gone. As Gunter and Rayner (2021) observe,

leadership is a field constantly in search of “the next big thing” (see also Alvesson & Einola,

2019). Yet, as these researchers note, the field is also characterized by a number of constants.

One of these is growth (Alvesson, 2019; Antonakis et al., 2019). Illustrative of this, over the

last 20 years the number of books on leadership that are published every year has trebled

(Maskor et al., 2021), while the number of peer-reviewed research articles that are published

annually has increased linearly by a factor of 6 (see Figure 1a). A second constant is the drive

to understand leadership as a process characterized by the distinct psychology of exceptional

individuals — the “special something” that brands effective leaders as superior to the rank-

and-file members of the groups they lead. This approach has provenance dating back to the

writings of Plato and Heraclitus and seminal reflections by Carlyle (1840, p.5) on leaders as

“great men”, but it continues to inform a broad range of leader-centric models of leadership

to the present day (see Haslam et al., 2020, for a review).



Figure 1a Number of publications on “leadership” by year.

Note: Data from a Scopus search of article titles, abstracts and keywords on October 12, 2021.

Against this backdrop, however, leadership research has seen one increasingly

influential movement emerge in recent years — one that focuses on questions of identity.

Broadly speaking, this conceptualizes leadership as a process that is grounded in the self-

related understandings of leaders and those they are seeking to lead. This is then fleshed out

in work that explores how these understandings bear upon multiple aspects of the various

contexts in which leaders are trying to influence others (Epitropaki et al., 2017; Ibarra et al.,

2014; van Knippenberg et al., 2004, 2005). In a nutshell, what all this research shows is that

who leaders think they are and who others—notably would-be followers—think leaders are

has a very significant bearing on leaders’ capacity to lead effectively. The growth of this

movement can be seen in Figure 1b. Here, alongside the linear growth in all forms of

leadership research that we noted above, one can see that work on leadership and identity has



increased by a factor of 25 since the turn of the millennium, and that this growth has been


Figure 1b Number of publications on (a) “identity leadership” (or “social identity” and

“leadership”), (b) “leader identity” (or “self-identity” and “leadership”) by year.

Note: Data from a Scopus search of article titles, abstracts and keywords on October 12, 2021.

The goal of this review (and the special issue that it introduces), is to map out some of

the key features of this movement with a view to appreciating not just what it has achieved,

but also where it is going. We do so primarily by zeroing in on two distinct strands of

research on leadership and identity whose relationship to each other has previously been

unclear. One of these strands focuses on the identity of leaders as individuals (work on

leader identity); the other focuses on the identity of leaders as group members (work on

identity leadership informed by the social identity model of leadership). As we will see, these

two strands of research provide researchers and practitioners with divergent understandings

of core aspects of the leadership process. In particular, they differ markedly in their



articulation of leader profiles, psychological processes, development pathways, practitioner

products, and social and organizational philosophies.

However, in what follows, as well as mapping out these differences, we also seek to

shed some light on ways in which they might be integrated and reconciled (in ways

recommended by Avolio, 2007; Elsbach & van Knippenberg, 2020; Stets & Burke, 2000).

More specifically, we formulate a dual-identity framework and an associated series of

propositions that together set out an emergent agenda for theoretical and practical progress.

Before developing this framework, though, we set the scene for this review and for the

special issue as whole by explaining what identity leadership and leader identity are about.

Two approaches to identity and leadership

Identity leadership

Work on the social identity model of leadership—and identity leadership more

generally—is informed by two influential social psychological theories: social identity theory

(SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (SCT; Turner et al. 1987). The

critical contribution of social identity theory is to recognize that, in a range of social and

organizational contexts, people’s sense of self is not primarily defined by their sense of

themselves as individuals (in terms of their personal identity, as “me” and “I”; Turner, 1982).

Rather, it is defined by their sense of themselves as members of particular groups (in terms of

their social identity, as “we” and “us”; Tajfel, 1972; see also Ellemers & Haslam, 2012;

Hogg & Abrams, 1988). Through its capacity to structure people’s sense of self, SIT also

argues that social identity has wide-ranging implications for cognition and behavior — three

of which are especially important.

First, when people define themselves in terms of a given social identity they are

motivated to see that (in)group (‘us’) as positively distinct from other comparison

(out)groups (‘them’; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Brewer, 1991). In simple, terms we want the



groups that matter to us to be special. Second, when a particular social identity is salient (i.e.,

psychologically operative in ways that contribute to a sense of social identification; Oakes et

al. 1994) we are focused, above all else, on the fate and standing of the relevant group. For

example, if a female cyclist defines herself as a member of a particular cycling team, what

matters in a team pursuit is not her personal time but her team’s time. Consequently, social

identification makes people willing to act against their personal interests in order to advance

the cause of a salient ingroup in ways that give rise to phenomena such as altruism,

organizational citizenship and self-sacrifice (Antonakis, d’Adda et al., 2021; Ashforth &

Mael, 1989; Haslam, 2001; Levine et al., 2002). And third, whether and how social identity

shapes behavior will depend heavily on people’s understanding of the social context in which

they find themselves. In particular, people’s behavior will depend on the extent to which

group boundaries are seen to be impermeable (e.g., so that it is impossible to leave a low-

status group), and the degree to which intergroup relations are perceived to be unstable and

illegitimate (e.g., Ellemers, 1993; Reicher & Haslam, 2006).

Despite the richness of its ideas, there are some core questions about the operation of

social identity that SIT does not address. What makes social identity salient? How is social

identity shared and coordinated within groups? And how do individuals differ in their

capacity to embody and enact social identity? It was partly to answer such questions that

SCT was developed in the 1980s. Its primary contribution was to argue that social identity

makes group behavior possible through a process of depersonalization in which the self

comes to be perceived as categorically interchangeable with others who are defined as

ingroup members in a particular context (Turner, 1982; Turner et al., 1987, 1994). In other

words, people are only able to work as a group because — and to the extent that —

depersonalized self-categorization leads them to see themselves and others as members of the

same social category (‘us’; Hogg & Turner, 1987).



This argument rests upon a model of the self as a categorical system in which the self

can be defined (and hence can inform behavior) at different levels of abstraction. At the most

concrete and exclusive level it is defined by personal identity which includes only the

individual (Turner, 1982), but it can also be defined more inclusively by a social identity

which includes other members of a salient ingroup (Oakes et al., 1994; Turner et al., 1897).

Critically, though, as well as providing a psychological platform for group behavior, SCT

argues that social identity provides a platform for particular people to guide and shape that

behavior through processes of social influence (Turner, 1991). In other words, social identity

is a basis for leadership (Hogg, 2001; Turner & Haslam, 2001).

A key point here is that when a person defines themselves in terms of a particular social

identity (e.g., as a feminist), they will be motivated both to discover the meaning of that social

identity (e.g., what it means to be a feminist) and to act in ways that embody that meaning. But in

a changing and uncertain world, these things may be hard to discern (Gaffney et al., 2018; Hogg,

2007, 2021). Accordingly, to makes sense of the world and our place within it, we rely on

information from other people who are members of our ingroup (Turner, 1991). But clearly not

everyone is going to be helpful here. If you are a feminist, it makes no sense to look to an anti-

feminist or a non-feminist for guidance on matters related to gender relations. Instead, you turn

to fellow ingroup members (i.e., other feminists) because you see them as best positioned to

inform you about self-relevant features of social reality (Hogg et al., 1990).

More particularly, SCT suggests that we will see others as qualified to inform us about a

given social identity—and hence seek out and respond positively to their leadership—to the

extent that they are perceived to be representative of a relevant ingroup (Hogg, 2001; Platow et

al., 2006; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001). Stated more formally in the language of cognitive

theorizing about the structure of categories, we are influenced by others to the extent that they

are seen to be prototypical of a relevant ingroup (Hogg, 2001; Turner, 1991; Turner & Haslam,



2001; van Knippenberg, 2011). Following the principle of meta-contrast, SCT also argues that

any individual group member will be seen to be more representative of an ingroup, and hence

more influential within it, to the extent that they are seen to embody both what “we” have in

common and what makes “us” different from other groups (Turner & Haslam, 2001). Moreover,

ceteris paribus the more prototypical a person is of a group with which we identify the more we

will be motivated to follow them.

These ideas were initially integrated and formalized within the social identity theory of

leadership (Hogg, 2001). They have since been confirmed by a large body of research which

shows that people are more receptive to the leadership of those who are more prototypical of a

relevant group (for reviews, see Hogg et al., 2012a; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2004; Platow et

al., 2015). In particular, this relationship was confirmed in two meta-analyses. The first included

35 independent studies with a total of over 6,000 participants (where r=.49; Barreto & Hogg,

2017); the second included 128 studies with over 30,000 participants (where r=.38; Steffens et

al. 2021). Importantly, the latter study confirmed that this relationship was also present in the

subset of studies that used experimental designs (where r=.23) and which were therefore able to

establish the causal impact of prototypicality. And as well as confirming that more prototypical

leaders are evaluated more favorably, this study also showed that leaders’ group prototypicality

predicted their behavioral impact—that is, whether their leadership translated into others’

followership (in ways explored by Haslam & Platow, 2001; Platow et al., 2015).

At the same time, though, other research inspired by social identity theorizing has

shown that leaders’ prototypicality is not all that matters when it comes to motivating

followers (Halevy et al., 2011). As well as being perceived to be “one of us” leaders also

need to be seen to “do it for us” through their work as ingroup champions (Haslam et al.,

2001). Indeed, one of the things that is most problematic for leaders’ effectiveness is the

perception that they are either acting for themselves or, worse, for an outgroup (Hogg et al.,



2012a). In this vein another large body of research shows that regardless of how prototypical

they are, leaders will be more effective when they are also seen to act in ways that advance

group interests (Giessner et al., 2013; Steffens et al., 2013; see Haslam et al., 2020, for a


The foregoing analysis assumes, however, that in any given situation there will

always be a pre-existing social identity for leaders to represent and advance. Moreover, the

process envisioned here is a rather passive one in which leaders can only be successful if

circumstances foist the mantle of prototypicality on their shoulders. How can leaders be

creative drivers of change, if they need always to represent and advance the interests of

others? A key point here is that social identities are not set in stone, but instead are a

moveable feast. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of effective leadership is precisely the ability to

take advantage of this flexibility. More specifically, work by Reicher and Hopkins (2000;

Reicher et al., 2005) suggests that leaders need to be entrepreneurs of social identity who

work not only to create a sense of shared group membership amongst would-be followers but

also to shape their understanding of social identity.

In these terms, the first task of a would-be leader is to create a sense that they and

their followers are bound together by a common cause which they embody (Haslam et al.,

2020; Maskor et al., 2020). This endeavor will often center on the task of bringing members

of diverse groups together in ways that create a superordinate sense of shared social identity.

At the same time, though, a key challenge here is to build a superordinate “us” in ways that

do not threaten subgroup distinctiveness or create intergroup threat—something that can be

done by creating a relational intergroup identity (Hogg, 2015; Hogg et al., 2012b; Kershaw

et al., 2020).

Again, though, these endeavors are not enough to guarantee success, especially in the

long term. For leadership is not only about the behavior of leaders but also about the way



they shape the behavior of followers (Bennis, 1999; Hollander, 1992; Platow et al., 2015).

Accordingly, leaders need to fashion social identity in ways that are compelling for followers

and that allow them to act in ways that embed shared group values in social reality. That is,

they need to be identity impresarios who devise and choreograph collective activities and

events that bring the groups they lead to life and give them a material force (Haslam et al.,


This observation speaks to evidence from the organizational literature that leaders

need to be “initiators of structure” (Fleishman, 1995; Judge et al., 2004; Peters & Waterman,

1982). But it also suggests that these structures need to be ones that help group members

collectively realize their aspirations for “us”. In the political realm, the importance of this

point is underlined by the power of rallies and marches to mobilize and galvanize followers

(Reicher & Haslam, 2017). But the form that such activities take necessarily varies as a

function of nature of the social identity that leaders are seeking to entrench. Nevertheless,

whatever the domain, the long-term effectiveness of groups and leadership is generally

buttressed by formalized identity performances and structures—such things as competitions

and conferences, feasts and festivals, ceremonies and celebrations.

Early work on social identity and leadership focused mainly on leaders’ identity

prototypicality. However, as it has evolved, social identity research has broadened out to also

explore leaders’ identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship and identity impresarioship.

In 2011, this work was brought together in the first edition of Haslam, Reicher and Platow’s

monograph The New Psychology of Leadership. This showcased the work of around 50

researchers who had contributed to research on social identity and leadership at that time (a

number that had grown to more than 150 by the time the second edition was published in

2020). To capture the breadth of social identity processes understood to be implicated in the



leadership process it also referred to this work as being broadly concerned with identity


As Figure 1 makes clear, over the ensuing decade, a substantial body of research has

served to take this agenda forward. In particular, alongside continued efforts to understand

how identity leadership “works” (e.g., Gaffney et al., 2018, 2019; Giannella et al., 2022*1;

Haslam et al., 2019; Rast et al., 2018; Sewell et al., 2022*; Smith et al., 2018) and what

effects it has (e.g., Fransen, McEwan et al., 2020; McLaren et al., 2021; Miller et al., 2021;

Stevens et al., 2019, 2021), researchers have been keen both to refine its assessment (Steffens

et al., 2014, van Dick et al., 2018) and to explore its applied relevance across diverse fields.

As a result, work on identity leadership now has very broad reach. Not only does it take place

all around the world (van Dick et al., 2018; van Dick & Kerschreiter, 2016) but so too its

concerns extend well beyond the traditional focus of leadership research on questions of

work and organization. Today, then, as Figure 2 attests, the frontiers of research on social

identity and leadership are found in fields as far-flung as sport (Fransen et al., 2015, 2016;

Haslam et al., 2020; Krug et al., 2020; McLaren et al., 2021; Slater & Barker, 2019), health

(Haslam et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2021), exercise (Miller et al., 2021; Stevens et al., 2021;

Steffens et al., 2019), politics (Crano & Gaffney, 2021; Gaffney et al., 2014; Mols et al.,

2022; Jetten et al., 2021), economics (Akerlof, 2020; Steffens et al., 2020), and theology

(Barentsen, 2015; Esler, 2021). As Akerlof (2020, p.xx) observes, the social identity

approach is one for all our “we’s”.

1 * denotes a paper included in this special issue



Figure 2 Number of publications on (a) “identity leadership” (or “social identity” and

“leadership”), (b) “leader identity” (or “self-identity” and “leadership”) by research

Note: Data from a Scopus search of article titles, abstracts and keywords on October 12, 2021.

Leader identity

Where research on identity leadership zeroes in on leaders’ “we-ness”, research on

leader identity focuses firmly on their “I-ness”. At heart, this focus means that it sees

leadership as a process that is facilitated and furthered by individuals who have a well-

developed personal understanding of themselves as leaders (a sense of “me as a leader”) and

who also succeed in getting others to accept this understanding. And whereas there are

multiple perspectives that have explored different facets of this process, in different ways

they all stress the importance of this interplay between leader behavior and follower

perceptions (Epitropaki et al., 2017).



Much of the pioneering work that fleshed out these ideas was conducted by Lord and

his colleagues, who focused on the importance of leader prototypes (e.g., Lord et al., 1984;

Lord & Maher, 1990, 1991). They argued that in order for their leadership to be successful,

individuals need to embody traits and attributes that are characteristic of leaders in the sphere

in which they are seeking to have influence and that are consistent with followers’

expectations of appropriate leader behavior. Accordingly, from this perspective, leadership is

understood to be “a cognitive knowledge structure held in the memory of perceivers [where]

perceivers use degree of match to this ready-made structure to form leadership perceptions”

(Lord & Maher, 1990, p.132). Building on these ideas, more recent work has focused on the

need for leaders to communicate values that speak to followers’ identities and that allow

them to be seen as role models by those followers in ways that serve as a basis for their own

self-regulation (Lord et al., 2001; Lord & Brown, 2004; see also Kark & van Dijk, 2007;

Moss et al., 2009).

As was the case with SCT, original formulations of these ideas were based on

cognitive research into the structure of natural categories (e.g., Rosch, 1978), and argued that

these prototypes represent relatively stable, enduring expectations defined at different levels

of abstraction. In particular, original statements of leadership categorization theory (Lord et

al., 1984) suggested that followers have a range of hierarchically-organized leadership

prototypes (with prototypes at lower levels being more concrete and more exclusive) which

provide them with a set of expectations regarding a potential leader’s appropriate traits and

behaviors. At a superordinate level leaders are expected to share a number of common

attributes (e.g., intelligence, honesty, and outgoingness), but Lord and colleagues (1984)

identify a range of lower-level “basic” categories where possession of certain attributes

differentiates between leaders in different domains (e.g., between sports and business




Because LCT suggests that these prototypes are relatively fixed determinants of

leader effectiveness, it also argues that where two basic-level categories are characterized by

a minimal level of content overlap, leaders who are effective in one domain (because their

behavior is consistent with the prototype for that domain) can nevertheless find it difficult to

be effective in the other. Among other things, this analysis can help to explain the observed

difficulty that popular leaders in one arena (e.g., the military or sport) can have in gaining

acceptance in another (e.g., business or politics) as well as the broader contextual

contingency of appropriate leadership behavior (Oc, 2018).

This work has made an important contribution to the field by emphasizing the

importance of followers’ perceptions and expectations in the leadership process. As did

Weber (1947, p.359) when he observed that charisma is about a leader being “regarded as of

divine origin or as exemplary” (emphasis added), it recognizes that leadership is as much in

the eye of the beholder as it is in the actions of the beheld (see also Nye & Simonetta, 1996).

But it goes further in recognizing that this is fundamentally a process of social


Yet as well as arguing that leaders need to be seen by others as leaders (and for those

others to grant them the power to act as leaders; DeRue et al., 2009; Jiang et al., 2021),

researchers have also argued that it is important for leaders to see themselves as leaders in

order for them to be able to lead effectively (Day & Halpin, 2007; DeRue & Ashford, 2010;

Zheng & Muir, 2015). In particular, it has been observed that when (and to the extent that) a

person identifies themselves as a leader—and this becomes integrated into their self-

schema—they will be more motivated to act in a leader-like way (Day & Lance, 2004;

DeRue et al., 2009; Rus et al., 2010).

Research that expands on these ideas has explored the ways in which the

internalization of leader identity makes a person more likely to claim, attain and maintain



formal leadership roles (Day & Halpin, 2004; Lord & Hall, 2005; Middleton et al., 2019;

Miscenko et al., 2017; Schyns et al., 2011). Amongst other things, it shows that once a person

self-defines as a leader they may talk more authoritatively, project themselves more

forcefully upon the world, and also be more willing to try out new leadership activities (e.g.,

by speaking out in meetings, taking responsibility for organizing events, putting themselves

forward for awards and prizes; DeRue et al., 2009; Kempster, 2006). Research suggests, for

example, that the pronounced willingness of men to take on leadership roles is one reason

why women are often crowded out of them (Barreto et al., 2003) or can find themselves in

suboptimal leadership positions (Ryan & Haslam, 2007). By the same token, if women (are

made to) experience conflict between gender identity and leader identity this can also hold

them back in the workplace and beyond (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Ibarra et al., 2013; Karelaia,

& Guillén, 2014; Heilman et al., 1989).

There is also evidence that taking on a leader identity can be a basis for meta-

competencies which are important for leadership, including self-awareness, adaptability, and

need for achievement (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Hall, 2004; Tubbs & Schulz, 2006). These

high-order competencies can be understood to derive in part from leaders’ desire to

distinguish themselves and stand out from others, and to set themselves apart from, and

above, potential followers (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2004; Steffens et al., 2022). But at the

same time, it is apparent that these same motivations can sometimes lead individuals to

pursue leadership in the service of their group (Lord & Hall, 2005; Ramdass, 2022). This was

seen, for example, when the French politician Alexandre Ledru-Rollin’s observed (during the

1848 Revolution) that “I am their leader, I must follow them” (cited in Haslam et al., 2020,


Moreover, research suggests that leader identity can motivate individuals to take

opportunities to develop and grow as a leader (e.g., by taking advantage or training and



development opportunities; Ashford & DeRue, 2012; Day, 2010; DeRue et al., 2009). There

is evidence too that leader identity is positively associated with judgements of leader

effectiveness made both by leaders themselves (Kragt & Guenter, 2018) and by their

superiors (Day & Sin, 2011; Kwok et al., 2018; Miscenko et al., 2017; Peters & Haslam,

2018a). Often, then, “looking like a leader” is an important part of the recipe for becoming

one (Biermeier-Hanson, 2012; Ford et al., 2017; Todorov, 2017; Todorov et al., 2005;

Truninger et al., 2020).

Together, these various strands of research have combined to make leader identity the

focus of a burgeoning research field (as shown in Figure 1), particularly in the field of

business and management. Indeed, in contrast to research on identity leadership (which, as

Figure 2 shows, has had more pronounced impact in psychology and the social sciences) it is

apparent that much of the impetus for growth here has derived from the fact that leader

identity has been integral to a wide range of leader(ship) development programs. Not only,

then, is leader identity something that is generally seen to be desirable, but it is also

something that lends itself to focused training and coaching. This is all the more true because

research suggests that people’s sense of leader identity can be cultivated and strengthened

through such activity (Chui, 2016; Day et al., 2009; Kwok et al., 2021).

Significant in this regard is work by Hammond and colleagues (2017) which points to

ways in which particular development experiences contribute to increases in the strength,

integration, level, and meaning of a person’s leader-related sense of self. Importantly, these

experiences can be acquired either through ongoing leadership activity or as a part of formal

training that helps would-be leaders appreciate, develop and enact a strong, integrated and

meaningful leader identity. Either way, the result of all this is that leaders not only develop a

clear narrative of themselves as leaders (Ibarra & Barbelescu, 2010; Zheng et al., 2020) but

are also better equipped to live this out in the world. In effect, then, this work extends the



Cartesian logic of cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) to the domain of leadership — so

that the lesson becomes cogito sum princeps ergo sum (I think I am a leader therefore I am).

Divergence in approaches to identity and leadership

Having set out some of the key ideas associated with these two approaches to matters

of identity and leadership, in this section we seek to tease out some of the key points of

difference between them as these pertain to key aspects of the leadership process. Although

some of these observations relate to points that have been explored and confirmed

empirically, most reflect points of theoretical difference and hence we frame them as

propositions (to be tested in future research) rather than as statements of fact. Moreover, our

ultimate goal here is not to consolidate differences in perspective but rather to map out their

distinct contributions our understanding of leadership so that we might be in a better position

to make sense of—and ultimately reconcile—their divergent insights.

Distinct leadership profiles

As we have already observed, the most fundamental and obvious difference between

work that focuses on identity leadership and that which focuses on leader identity is that

whereas the latter views leadership as grounded in a leader’s identity as an individual (their

personal identity as ‘me’ and ‘I’), the former views it as grounded in a psychological sense of

group membership (‘us-ness’) that they share with other members of their ingroup (their

social identity as ‘one of us’). And although these constructs are not mutually exclusive (in

ways that we will discuss later), they are not necessarily aligned. Accordingly, we propose


P1. Leaders’ identity leadership and leader identity (as perceived by leaders themselves

and by others) are distinguishable and independent from each other.

It should also be the case that identity leadership and leader identity impact social and

organizational outcomes via different pathways and for different reasons. On the one hand,



when leaders are motivated to act in the interests of their group (i.e., by engaging in identity

leadership) this should in turn motivate other group members to display forms of creative

followership necessary for the achievement of group goals (Haslam & Platow, 2001). On the

other hand, when leaders have a strong sense of leader identity they will often be motivated

to act in stereotypically leader-like ways (Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998). And although

these will typically be focused more on the advancement of interests associated with personal

identity than those associated with social identity (i.e., advancing ‘me’ rather than ‘us’;

Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Ellemers et al., 1999; Tyler & Blader, 2003), under

appropriate conditions they can nevertheless translate into positive group-level outcomes. We

will discuss the nature of these conditions further below, but this is particularly likely to be

the case in meritocratic systems that encourage and reward strategies of individual mobility

but where there are nevertheless collaborative norms and high-level support for collaboration

(Ellemers, 1993; Ellemers et al., 2004; Hogg & Abrams, 1998; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Notwithstanding H1, we therefore propose that:

P2. Both identity leadership and leader identity have the potential to contribute to

engagement-related organizational outcomes (e.g., organizational citizenship

behavior), albeit via different psychological pathways.

P1 has rarely been subjected to a direct and focused test. However, before an

intervention to build identity leadership, Haslam et al. (2017) found a very low correlation

between leaders’ motivations to engage in identity leadership and their motivations to

enhance a sense of their own distinct identity as individual leaders (r = .03). Moreover, after

the intervention, there was a moderately strong negative correlation between these two

constructs (r = -.38).

There is, however, plenty of evidence, much of which we have alluded to already, that

supports the distinct components of P2 (e.g., Day & Sin, 2011; Steffens et al., 2018, 2021).



Together, then, patterns of support for P1 and P2 suggest that, although they are independent,

leader identity and identity leadership can be (and can become) more or less aligned as a

function both of leaders’ experiences and of the context in which they find themselves. This

is a point that we can appreciate more clearly by reflecting on the processual distinctions

between leader identity and identity leadership.

Distinct leadership processes

What then are the different pathways via which these two identity-based approaches

to leadership operate? As outlined above, identity leadership is argued to work via processes

that build and leverage leader’s group-based ties to (potential) followers and thereby motivate

those followers to contribute to the achievement of goals that are perceived to advance group

interests. More specifically, SCT (Turner et al., 1987) suggests that leaders’ capacity for

influence is grounded in their capacity to create, advance, represent, and embed a sense of

social identity — a sense of “us-ness” — that they share with followers. It is this “us-ness”

that then provides a basis for them to achieve power through those followers (Haslam et al.,

2011; Hogg, 2001; Steffens et al., 2014; Steffens & Haslam, 2013; Turner, 2005). More

formally, then, we propose that:

P3. Identity leadership (and an emphasis on this; e.g., on the part of leaders within an

organization) will generally (a) reinforce the value and salience of a social identity that

leaders share with followers, (b) be associated with efforts to bind leaders to the groups

they lead, and in turn (c) contribute to leaders’ influence-based impact (their ‘power

through’ others).

In contrast, leader identity is argued to have impact by virtue of its capacity to

motivate individuals to develop and advance their personal credentials and goals in a

particular social and organizational setting (DeRue et al., 2009). As Day and Sin put it, leader

identity “helps to ground individuals in terms of who they are, what their major goals and



aspirations are (e.g., possible selves), and what their personal strengths and challenges are”

(2012, p.547). In line with the “great man” logic upon which the field of leadership was

founded (after Carlyle, 1840), efforts to build and promote leader identity thus envisage a

world in which individual leaders come to the fore by virtue of their capacity to make a case

(not least to themselves) for their superiority vis-a-vis other group members (Ashford &

DeRue, 201; Gemmill & Oakley, 1992). Understood through the lens of SCT (Turner et al.,

1987, 1994), on this basis we can propose that:

P4. Leader identity (and an emphasis on this; e.g., on the part of leaders within an

organization) will generally (a) reinforce the salience of leaders’ personal identity, (b)

be associated with dynamics that differentiate leaders from the groups they lead, and in

turn (c) contribute to leaders’ resource-based impact (their ‘power over’ others).

P3 and P4 have not been directly tested in previous research. Nevertheless, they are

consistent with the logic of much of the research that we have reviewed thus far, as well as

the research that supports them. In particular, consistent with P3, there is evidence that

activities which focus leaders on the need to build a sense of shared identity within the teams

they lead serves to build their team identification (Haslam et al., 2017) and sense of collective

efficacy (Slater & Barker, 2019), and that these have similar impact on team members

(Mertens et al., 2021a, 2021b). Elsewhere, support for P4 comes from a plethora of studies

which point to the ways in which leaders’ personal self-confidence and personal agency can

be increased by their internalization of a sense of themselves as a leader (e.g., as reviewed by

Ashford & DeRue, 2012; Day & Dragoni, 2015; Hammond et al., 2017).

In line with the logic of SCT, we can also understand the relationship between P3 and

P4 (and their relationship to P1) by mapping the processes that are the focus of research on

identity leadership and leader identity in two-dimensional space (in ways suggested by



Epitropaki et al., 2017). This is seen in Figure 3 where one dimension is defined by

differences in analytic/self focus and the other by the inclusivity of psychological analysis.

Figure 3 Differences in the analytic focus of (research on) leader identity and identity


This figure serves to reinforce three key points. The first of these is that identity

leadership and leader identity entail a markedly different analytic focus for both researchers

and would-be leaders. So whereas identity leadership focuses primarily on leadership and

identity as group phenomena associated with a social self that is inclusive of others (e.g.,

Hogg, 2001; Turner & Haslam, 2001), leader identity focuses on these things as primarily

(inter)personal processes and phenomena associated with a personal self that is defined more

exclusively (e.g., Ashford & DeRue, 2012; Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Lanaj et al., 2021).

Second, within these two research traditions, there are specific forms of identity that also

differ along these dimensions. For example, within the body of work on leader identity,

researchers note that this sometimes operates as an identity that is unique to a specific



individual (e.g., “me the leader”), but also sometimes as a social identity that is shared with

others (e.g., “us leaders”; Ashford & DeRue, 2012).

Third, it is apparent that rather than being entirely distinct, there is an area of overlap

which defines an important point of contact between the two traditions. This overlap relates

to contexts in which leaders are attuned to both their personal identity as a leader and the

social identity they share with the team they lead. Here leadership is realized through a

relational identity in which these two levels of analysis are articulated with each other — so

that a leader’s personal identity as a leader is grounded in their social identity as a member of

a particular group and their role-related ties and relationships to other members of that group

(e.g., in ways discussed by Day & Dragoni, 2015; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Jolly et al.,

2020*; Postmes & Jetten, 2006; Rast et al., 2019; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007; Sluss et al., 2011).

Importantly, by virtue of its potential to galvanize the energies of both leader identity and

identity leadership (e.g., as implied by P2), this point of contact has particularly important

implications for leadership dynamics. Accordingly, this potential—and the factors that

contribute either to its realization or to its suppression—is something we will return to reflect

on in more detail below.

Distinct leadership pathways

Yet notwithstanding their points of contact, it is also the case that because concern for

identity leadership and for leader identity entail very different foci, they should also take

those who pursue them along quite different development pathways. More specifically,

concern for leaders’ identity leadership (on the part either of leaders themselves or of those

who are interested in their development) should motivate leaders to gravitate towards the

groups they are seeking to lead. However, this gravitational pull should be less apparent

when leaders are concerned with the development of their leader identity. Indeed, here

leaders may focus their efforts more on ensuring that they embody prototypical leadership



characteristics (e.g., of a form discussed by Lord & Maher, 1990; Lord et al., 2001) in the

eyes of others outside the group—in particular, those who make formal assessments of these

things (e.g., their own superiors, members of appointment committees).

To the extent that these different motivations are at work, depending on their concern

for either leader identity or leadership identity, leaders may encounter divergent reactions

from different parties. In the first instance, to the extent that leaders (seek to) engage in

identity leadership this should be more likely to secure support for their leadership from

fellow members of their ingroup (e.g., in ways observed by Barreto & Hogg, 2017; Steffens

et al., 2021; van Dick et al., 2018). However, reactions to their leadership should be less

enthusiastic outside this ingroup, and in particular, their leadership credentials may be less

likely to be recognized by external parties who assess their leadership. More formally, then,

we propose that:

P5. The challenges of developing identity leadership will motivate would-be leaders to

engage with the collective identity of the groups they seek to lead and this development

will generally be more appealing to rank-and-file members of those groups than it is to

external parties (e.g., those who occupy senior positions in an organization).

In contrast, when leaders are motivated to develop and promote their leader identity

the resulting behaviour may be relatively uninspiring for other members of their ingroup but

more likely to find favor among outsiders who assess their leadership in relation to generic

leader prototypes. Here, then, we propose that:

P6. The challenges of developing a leader identity will not primarily motivate would-be

leaders to engage with the collective identity of the groups they seek to lead and this

development will generally be less appealing to rank-and-file members of those groups

than it is to external parties (e.g., those who occupy senior positions in an




Again, these propositions have not hitherto been of any great interest to leadership

researchers. Nevertheless, some support for them emerges from longitudinal research by

Peters and Haslam (2018a, 2018b) which examined reactions to the leadership of elite

military personnel as they progressed through an intensive training program designed to

increase their capability as leaders. This found that whereas those in senior positions were

attuned to, and rewarded, the positive aspects of trainees’ leader identity (related to the fact

that those trainees presented themselves to the world as leaders), their peers were more

attuned to the positive consequences of their identity leadership (related to their perceived

capacity to understand and advance ingroup interests). Accordingly, when it came to formally

recognizing individuals’ leadership prowess, team members were more likely to endorse

those who cast themselves as group followers rather than leaders; however, the opposite was

true for those in positions of command.

That said, it is unclear whether this is a pattern that would be replicated in other

organizational contexts or in studies using a naturalistic causal design (Sieweke & Santoni,

2020). It is unclear too what its implications are for broader aspects of group and

organizational functioning. One might imagine, for example, that these two pathways would

appeal to leaders with differing patterns of team and organizational identification, and that

interest in supporting people’s progress down these pathways (e.g., by procuring particular

forms of leadership training) would also vary as a function of a person’s ingroup-outgroup

status in relation to the group that is being led. More generally, the issue of who buys into

these different models of leadership and identity (and what exactly these entail) takes us to

our next set of considerations.

Distinct leadership products

An obvious extension of the foregoing observations is that when researchers and

practitioners are looking to assess and develop leadership, the tools they use for this purpose



will differ markedly depending on whether their interest is in identity leadership or leader

identity. More specifically, we can propose that:

P7. Leader identity will generally lend itself to individual-focused activities and

interventions that assess and seek to develop the leader’s personal identity as an



P8. Identity leadership will generally lend itself to group-focused activities and

interventions that assess and seek to develop the leader’s social identity as a group


When it comes to assessment, two measures are most widely used to capture these

two forms of leadership and, as can be seen from Table 1, their content is very much in line

with these propositions. On one hand, the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI; Steffens et al.,

2014) focuses on the four aspects of identity leadership that we discussed above (identity

prototypicality, identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship, and identity

impressarioship). This questionnaire has been validated in over 20 countries around the world

(van Dick et al., 2018), and is typically used to explore (potential) followers’ perceptions of a

given leader’s capacity to represent, advance, create and embed their group (e.g., as it is by

Khumalo et al., 2022*, in this special issue).

On the other hand, the leader-self-identity scale (Hiller, 2005) has also been widely

used and validated (e.g., by Day & Sin, 2011) but it zeroes in on a leader’s self-categorization

as a leader—using items that are actually quite similar to those used by social identity

theorists to assess self-categorization at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., such that “I see

myself as a member of this group” becomes “I see myself as a leader”; Doosje et al., 1995;

Ellemers et al., 1999; Postmes et al., 2013). Moreover, reflecting this difference in self-

categorical focus (and in line with H7), Steffens et al. (2022) found that leader identity was



more strongly associated with leaders’ striving to cultivate their personal identity as a leader

(r’s = .68, .65, .64) than it was with their striving to cultivate collective identity around team

members (r’s = .40, .32, .43). Note, though, that the latter relationships were still moderately

strong. This finding speaks to the fact that, as we noted in discussing P2, developing a sense

of leader identity is not necessarily inconsistent with the pursuit of identity leadership (Day

& Harrison, 2007).

Table 1. Measures of identity leadership and leader identity

The identity leadership inventory (ILI)* The leader self-identity scale #

• This leader is a model member of [the group]. • I am a leader

• This leader acts as a champion for [the group]. • I see myself as a leader

• This leader creates a sense of cohesion within

[the group].

• If I had to describe myself to others, I

would include the word ‘leader’

• This leader creates structures that are useful for

[group members]

• I prefer being seen by others as a leader

Note: * The short-form version of the 15-item scale developed by Steffens et al. (2014).
# Scale developed by Hiller (2005, p.165)

It also follows that efforts to train and develop leaders will have a very different focus

depending on whether they are informed by a concern to develop leader identity or to develop

identity leadership. In this regard, interventions to develop leader identity (either as a core or

an incidental objective) typically have an emphasis on improving the skills and mindsets of

individual leaders (Hay & Hodgkinson, 2006; Middleton et al., 2019; Muir, 2014; Pyle, 2013;

Zheng & Muir, 2015). And while this can involve working with groups, this is not

necessarily the case. In contrast, interventions to develop identity leadership generally make

working with groups a priority (Fransen, Haslam et al., 2020; Haslam et al., 2017; Meertens

et al., 2020, 2021; Slater & Barker, 2019).



Along the lines of points that we made in discussing P2, it seems likely too that the

identity-related emphasis of leadership programs will have an impact not only on the personal

and social motivations of those who take part in them (as observed by Haslam et al., 2017)

but also on people’s motivations to take part. Suggestive of the latter point, there is some

evidence that the more a person is preoccupied with their own individuality (i.e., the more

narcissistic they are), the more interested they will generally be in learning about traits

associated with leader identity (r = .26), but that this observation is somewhat less true when

it comes to learning about identity leadership (r = .10; Steffens & Haslam, 2020).

Again, these matters are not a routine concern for leadership scholars. But perhaps

they should be—especially in light of growing concern about the capacity for the leadership

industrial complex to attract and animate those whose ambitions are egotistical rather than

altruistic (Alvesson, 2019; Brown, 2014; Chatterjee & Hmbrick, 2007; Chaterjee & Pollock,

2017; Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Kellerman, 2012, 2016; Ladkin, 2020; Rosenthal &

Pittinsky, 2006; Tourish, 2013).

Distinct leadership philosophies

Consideration of the differential appeal of different approaches to questions of

leadership and identity also alerts us to the fact that, at heart, these two approaches reflect

different philosophies of leadership. More specifically, interest in leader identity can be seen

to extend a traditional leader-centric view of the process in which narratives of success and

progress are structured around an outstanding individual who is maximally different from

others (after Carlyle, 1840). As Alvesson puts it, here: “The assumption is that the leader is

very superior to everybody else. S/he knows best and … is clearly the centre of the

organizational universe” (2019, p.30). It follows, then, that this approach should have appeal

in social and organizational contexts which embrace, and look to instantiate, an

individualistic and meritocratic worldview. Moreover, the core tenets of SIT lead us to expect



that this will generally be more true to the extent that systems (and those who lead them)

place an emphasis on personal mobility as a means of self-enhancement (à la ‘the American

Dream’; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Ellemers & Haslam, 2010; Hogg & Abrams, 1988;

Sandel, 2020). Accordingly, we propose that:

P9. An emphasis on leader identity will generally be more welcome in organizations and

cultures that are individualistic and meritocratic and that embrace a philosophy of

personal mobility.

At the same time, though, SIT also suggests that strategies of personal mobility will

not always find favor, and that structural and psychological factors will sometimes combine

to lead people to prioritize collective opportunities to achieve progress and change (Tajfel &

Turner, 1979). This desire for collective progress can come to the fore, for example, when

avenues to personal self-enhancement are perceived to be limited and/or when social-

structural realities motivate people to instead work together to pursue opportunities for social

creativity and social competition (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Under

these circumstances, we anticipate that identity leadership may be more appealing as a

vehicle for enhancing collective self-efficacy and agency (Reicher et al., 2005). More

formally, we propose that:

P10. An emphasis on identity leadership will generally be more welcome in organizations

and cultures that are collectivistic and democratic and that embrace a philosophy of

social creativity and/or social competition.

Neither of these propositions has previously been formally tested, and moreover there

is little evidence that relates directly to them. Nevertheless, the fact that work on leader

identity originates in, and continues to gain energy from, the relatively individualistic field of

business and management (Bozeman, 2007; Van Hoorn, 2014; see Figure 2) can be seen to

be consistent with P8, just as enthusiasm for identity leadership in fields of sport, the arts,



health, and public service can be seen to be consistent with P9. As we noted above, it is

telling too that, to date, all the published research on interventions that seek to build identity

leadership has been conducted in contexts where advancement of the collective is at least as

important as advancement of the individual.

Clearly, though, the question of whether and how philosophy and ideology inform

passion for different approaches to identity and leadership is one that remains to be properly

addressed. In particular, there would appear to be scope to explore the ways in which P9 and

P10 relate not just to organizational differences but to individual differences (e.g., in ‘dark

triad’ personality traits of narcissism, psychopathy and Machavellianism; Furtner et al.

2011). In this context we would note too, that by helping to shed light on the attractions of

toxic leadership such research might help to address a significant—albeit slippery and

perennially marginalized—question for the field of leadership as a whole (Alvesson, 2019;

Gemmill & Oakley, 1986; Lipman-Blumen, 2005, 2006; Mumford & Fried, 2014). At the

same time we would note that such research might also help to address calls for research into

toxic leadership to lift its game both theoretically and empirically (Fischer et al., 2021).

Attention to matters of identity may thus be one very powerful way of gaining traction on this

question as a means of driving the field forward. Moreover, it is also worth asking whether in

the context of pursuing this agenda progress might be made by seeking to develop an

integrative framework that also reconciles the various other differences between identity

leadership and leader identity that we have observed thus far. In drawing this review to a

close, it is to this possibility that we now turn.

Reconciling divergent approaches to identity and leadership: A dual-identity model of

leader development

It is clear from the foregoing review that research on identity and leadership has

developed in very distinct ways such that researchers who focus on the dynamics of leader



identity have explored leader profiles, psychological processes, development pathways,

practitioner products, and social and organizational philosophies that are generally very

different from those explored by researchers interested in identity leadership. In itself this is

unproblematic and indeed it can be seen as indication of the richness and diversity of

leadership research (Antonakis et al., 2019). Yet in so far as the work in these two areas of

leadership scholarship is ostensibly concerned with very similar things, the extent of their

estrangement might nevertheless strike one as surprising. Accordingly, in this final section of

our review we turn to the question of whether and how the two approaches might be brought

into alignment.

In recent years, there have been a number of developments that give cause for

optimism on this front. In the first instance, as Epitropaki et al. (2017) note, the two

approaches not only have similar goals, but also work with similar constructs. In particular,

both recognize the self as central to leaders’ engagement in leadership and to the success of

that engagement. Both also recognize that the self is a categorical structure that, in principle

at least, can be defined at different levels of abstraction (Hogg, 2001; Lord & Maher, 1990;

Turner & Haslam, 2001; after Rosch, 1978).

As work on leader identity progressed, researchers have also noted that the leader

identity of leaders who are most effective and successful tends not to be focused entirely on

their personal self but also to encompass relational and collective dimensions (Clapp-Smith et

al., 2019; Day & Harrison, 2007; Fleming et al., 2018; Jolly et al., 2020*; Johnson et al.,

2012; Lord & Hall, 2005). More particularly, Lord and Hall (2005), argue that forms of

leader identity that are isomorphic with personal identity (such that leadership is all about

‘me the leader’) can be understood as relatively immature, and that with greater expertise and

maturity leaders grow into more collective aspects of identity, such that “as leaders develop,

there is a shift in focus from individual to collective-level identities, both for the leader’s own



self-identity, and the identities of the followers” (p.596; see also Johnson et al., 2012;

Komives et al., 2005). Likewise, Day and Harrison (2007) argue that “a cadre of highly

developed individual leaders” will be poorly suited to complex challenges of leadership and

that overcoming these instead requires leaders with “shared, distributed, collective, or

connected leadership capacity” (2007, p.362).

Coming at related issues from a social identity perspective, in recent years researchers

have noted that having a strong sense of social identity is not necessarily inconsistent with

having a strong sense of personal identity. Early statements of SCT suggested that as a

consequence of the principle of functional antagonism there might be a hydraulic relationship

between these two levels of self-categorization whereby as one increases the other declines

(Turner et al., 1987). However, as this idea was put to empirical test, researchers increasingly

questioned this principle (Postmes & Jetten, 2006). Not least, this was because it became

clear that there are a range of contexts in which people’s personal identity comes to be

defined more or less exclusively by their social identity (Baray et al., 1999) — a process

researchers refer to as identity fusion (Swann et al., 2012). This can be understood as a form

of very high social identification in which the line between personal identity (‘me’) and

social identity (‘us’) is hard to discern — potentially because it no longer exists.

More generally, this phenomenon speaks to evidence that people can simultaneously

self-categorize at multiple levels of abstraction (e.g., as members of a subgroup and of a

superordinate group) and that, when they do, this dual identification is associated with

distinctive forms of social and organizational behavior (Eggins et al., 1999; Harquail & King,

2003; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000; Thomas et al, 2009). In this vein, Haslam et al. (2003) and

Hogg and Terry (2000) discuss a range of ways in which multi-level identities contribute

to—and often prove to be essential for—complex forms of high-level organizational behavior

including multi-party negotiation, participative goal-setting and strategic planning. A key



point here is that optimal outcomes are unlikely to be achieved unless leadership is sensitive

to all of the identity concerns (of both leaders and followers) that bear upon a given issue.

This assertion is grounded in the observation when organizational process and policy is blind

to the identities that matter to people it generally fails to engage their energies (or, when it

does, it engages them in counterproductive ways; Humphreys & Brown, 2002; Jetten et al.,


In much the same way, one can argue that leader–group identity fusion contributes to

distinctive forms of leadership in which the leader has a strong sense of their personal

identity as a leader but this is grounded in, and emerges from, an equally strong sense of

social identity that they share with fellow ingroup members (and for whom they feel

obligation and responsibility; e.g., along lines discussed by Scholl et al., 2018; Yaffe & Kark,

2011). This fusion is represented schematically in Figure 4 as the intersection between leader

identity and identity leadership. Examples of its phenomenology in the world at large can be

found in Nelson Mandela’s observation that “I have always regarded myself, in the first

place, as an African patriot” and in Theodore Roosevelt’s claim that “I am, if I am anything,

an American. I am an American from the crown of my head to the soles of my feet” (cited in

Haslam & Reicher, 2016, p.21). Critically, then, here the leader’s identity as both leader and

group member allows them to mobilize the resources of both personal and social identity.

More specifically, the former should motivate them to project themselves onto the world and

to engage in leader-like activities (e.g., in ways suggested by Ashford & DeRue, 2012; Day,

2010; DeRue et al., 2009) at the same time that the latter should ensure that these are

informed by, and help to advance, the interests of their group (e.g., in ways suggested by

Chrobot-Mason et al., 2016; Haslam et al., 2020; Hogg et al., 2012a; Steffens et al., 2014).

On this basis, then, we can propose that:



P11. Leadership will be more effective to the extent that leader–group identity fusion brings

the demands of leader identity into alignment with the demands of identity leadership.

Similarly, we can hypothesize that efforts to develop leadership (e.g., through training and

coaching) will be more effective to the extent that they support this process of leader-group

identity fusion.

Figure 4 Leader–group identity fusion and leader–group identity fission.
Note: Leader–group identity fusion has an integrative impact on the energies of leader identity and

identity leadership. Leader–group identity fission has a disintegrative impact on those same


Again, this proposition has not been formally tested. However, it is consistent with

the developmental trajectories described by Lord and Hall (2005) and Day and Harrison

(2007) and with evidence that we discussed earlier which suggests that although leader

identity and identity leadership are distinct constructs (as per P1) they can be brought into

alignment in ways that allow both to contribute to positive engagement-related outcomes (as

per P2; see Antonakis et al., 2011). Indeed, conceptually, one can understand the



developmental trajectory here as movement towards leader–group identity fusion along the

plane from A1 to A2 described in Figure 4.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there is nothing inevitable about

leaders’ progression towards a state of leader–group identity fusion. So although many

leaders will have this developmental trajectory, many others will not. Whatever the sphere of

activity (e.g., whether politics, business or academia), the world is replete with leaders whose

desire to advance their leader identity has increasingly compromised their capacity to do

identity leadership. Indeed, Haslam et al. (2011) suggest that, if anything, this may be the

more typical progression. This is because leaders easily fall prey to the “leader trap” (that we

might more accurately call the leader identity trap) of initially succeeding as leaders by

mobilizing their group through identity leadership but ultimately failing because they neglect

the group or take it for granted. Here, then, the developmental trajectory is one where leader–

group identity fusion (as leaders move along a plane from B1 to B2 in Figure 4) ultimately

gives way to leader-group identity fission (as they move from B2 to B3). Here, then, we

propose that:

P12. Leadership will be less effective to the extent that leader–group identity fission

brings the demands of leader identity into conflict with the demands of identity


In the world at large there are a range of factors that can contribute to this fission. One

is leaders’ hubris (Kroll et al., 2000; Petit & Bollaert, 2012). Certainly, if one succeeds as a

leader by harnessing the power of the group it can be tempting to succumb to the romantic

attributional error of assuming that this was all one’s own work (Berger et al., 2020).

However, in organizations and society at large there are also structural forces that encourage

such attributions and thereby drive a wedge between leader identity and identity leadership.

For example, there are appraisal systems and reward structures that require people to



privilege the individual over the collective (Van Hoorn, 2014; Waring, 1999). There are also

societal narratives and practices that persistently reinforce heroic understandings of the

leadership process (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992). Moreover, on top of this, the enemies of a

group may seek to inflame intragroup tension by alerting rank-and-file group members to the

leader’s laurels in ways that weaken their identity-based ties to that leader and the group

(Maskor et al., 2021).

These various reflections alert us to the fact that leadership and identity never

manifest themselves in a vacuum. Moreover, the organizations and groups in which they arise

are never monocultures devoid of texture or choice. Importantly too, although leader–group

identity fusion will tend to make groups and leadership more effective, there is no sense in

which this fusion is, in itself, a ‘better’ process than that of identity fission. Indeed, within the

social psychological literature, considerations of identity fusion often come with a health

warning on account of the fact that this process is generally associated with high levels of

commitment to a group of a form that can shade into fanaticism (Baray et al., 2009; Swann et

al., 2009).

This same health warning can sometimes also be warranted in the domain of

leadership—noting that whereas above we cited Roosevelt and Mandela as positive

exemplars of leader-group identity fusion, we could also point to Hitler’s claim that “Above

all, I am a German. As a German I feel at one with the fate of my people” as a manifestation

of essentially the same process (Reicher & Haslam, 2016, p.21; see also Galvin et al., 2015).

Here, then, we would not want to bring leader identity and identity leadership into alignment

but rather to tear them asunder. This observation in turn alerts us to the fact that when it

comes to practical matters of leadership, identity content is at least as important as identity

process (Galvin et al., 2015; Haslam et al., 2011; Rast et al., 2019). So although there often is

a general tendency in leadership research to see leadership as an unalloyed good (Alvesson et



al., 2016), its value for society ultimately depends on the values and norms by which groups

and their members are animated.


Absolute identity with one’s cause is the first and great condition of successful

leadership (Woodrow Wilson, cited in Pestritto, 2005, p.214)

We noted at the outset that research into leadership and identity has hitherto been

associated with two divergent streams of activity. One of these focuses on the leader’s

personal identity as an individual, the other on their social identity as a member of a group or

collective. Yet although it is clear that these have lent themselves to very different ways of

thinking about the leadership process, we also suggested that there is a possibility of a

rapprochement between them that brings the theory and practice of identity leadership and

leader identity into alignment. More specifically, we argued that leaders will be best placed to

lead effectively when their identity as leaders is founded upon, and hence intrinsically

compatible with, their identity as group members. This indeed is the “first and great condition

of successful leadership” to which Wilson alludes.

At a deeper level, though, we can see that Wilson’s observation alerts us to the fact

that in order to lead one also has to have a cause — in other words, a group of some form

that one is looking to represent and advance. It is for this reason, that, on its own, leader

identity is of little practicable use. Nevertheless, when harnessed to a group and a social

identity, it can be a potent force.

This is a point that is brought home in different ways by many of the papers in this

special issue (notably Khumalo et al., 2022*; Selvanathan et al., 2022*). We see too that it is

only when leaders bring their personal and social identities into alignment that they are able

to mobilize the power of the group to change the world. This mobilization can be, but is not



always, collectively enriching. Yet as Wilson opined elsewhere, if leaders fail to do this, their

leadership will always be impoverished (Hart, 2002, p.15).




* = paper included in this special issue

Akerlof, G. (2020). The social identity approach to leadership and why it matters. Foreword

to S. A. Haslam, S. D. Reicher, & M. J. Platow. The new psychology of leadership:

Identity, influence and power (2nd ed., pp xvi-xx). Routledge.

Alvesson, M. (2019). Waiting for Godot: Eight major problems in the odd field of leadership

studies. Leadership, 15, 27-43.

Alvesson, M., Blom, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2016). Reflexive leadership: Organising in an

imperfect world. Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Einola, K. (2019). Warning for excessive positivity: Authentic leadership

and other traps in leadership studies. The Leadership Quarterly, 30, 383-395.

Antonakis, J., Banks, G. C., Bastardoz, N., Cole, M. S., Day, D. V., Eagly, A. H., … &

Weber, R. (2019). Leadership Quarterly: The State of the Journal. The Leadership

Quarterly, 30, 1-9.

Antonakis, J., d’Adda, G., Weber, R. A., & Zehnder, C. (2021). Just words? Just speeches?

On the economic value of charismatic leadership. Management Science. Advance online


Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two

interventions. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(3), 374-396.

Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful

engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 146-154.

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge

of constructing a positive identity. Academy of management Review, 24, 413-434.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of

Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Avolio, B. J. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building.

American Psychologist, 62, 25-33.

Baray, G., Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2009). When I equals we: Exploring the relation between

social and personal identity of extreme right-wing political party members. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 625–647.

Barreto, M., Ryan, M. K., & Schmitt, M. (Eds.) (2009). Barriers to diversity: The glass

ceiling in the 21st century. APA Books.

Barreto, N. B., & Hogg, M. A. (2017). Evaluation of and support for group prototypical



leaders: A meta-analysis of twenty years of empirical research. Social Influence, 12, 41-


Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full

inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 71–80.

Barentsen, J. (2015). Church leadership as adaptive identity construction in a changing social

context. Journal of Religious Leadership, 15, 49-80.

Berger, J., Osterloh, M., Rost, K., & Ehrmann, T. (2020). How to prevent leadership hubris?

Comparing competitive selections, lotteries, and their combination. The Leadership

Quarterly, 31, 101388.

Biermeier-Hanson, B. (2012). Looking like a leader: An investigation into racial biases in

leader prototypes. Wayne State University.

Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic

individualism. Georgetown University Press.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this” We”? Levels of collective identity and

self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93.

Brown, A. (2014). The myth of the strong leader: Political leadership in the modern age.

London: Bodley Head.

Carlyle, T. (1840). Heroes and hero worship. London: Harrap. p.5

Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and

leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,


Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive

officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 52, 351-386.

Chatterjee, A., & Pollock, T. G. (2017). Master of puppets: How narcissistic CEOs construct

their professional worlds. Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 703-725.

Chui, S. L. M. (2016). Leader identity construction at social enterprises: Effects of social

feedback, identity level, work role salience and organizational context. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Durham University Business School.

Chrobot-Mason, D., Gerbasi, A., & Cullen-Lester, K.L. (2016). Predicting leadership

relationships: The importance of collective identity. The Leadership Quarterly, 27, 298-




Clapp-Smith, R., Hammond, M. M., Lester, G. V., & Palanski, M. (2019). Promoting identity

development in leadership education: A multidomain approach to developing the whole

leader. Journal of Management Education, 43, 10-34.

Collinson, D., & Tourish, D. (2015). Teaching leadership critically: New directions for

leadership pedagogy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 576–594.

Crano, W. D., & Gaffney, A. M. (2021). Minority influence and leadership processes in the

rise and fall of populist movements. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & W. D. Crano (Eds.) The

psychology of populism: The tribal challenge to liberal democracy. Taylor & Francis.

Day, D. V. (2010). The difficulties of learning from experience and the need for deliberate

practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 41–44.

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review

based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior, 2, 133–156.

Day, D. V., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Growing leaders for tomorrow: An introduction. In D.

V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (eds.), Leader development for transforming

organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 3–22). Routledge.

Day, D. V. & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership

development. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 360-373.

Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. (2004). Understanding the development of leadership complexity

through latent growth modeling. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin

(Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for

tomorrow (pp. 41–69). Lawrence Erlbaum

Day, D. V., & Sin, H. P. (2011). Longitudinal tests of an integrative model of leader

development: Charting and understanding developmental trajectories. The Leadership

Quarterly, 22, 545-560.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process

of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35,


DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. C. (2009). Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the

process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In L.M. Roberts & J.E. Dutton

(eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and

research foundation (pp. 217–236). Routledge.

Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function



of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-


Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.

Eggins, R. A., Haslam, S. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2002). Social identity and negotiation:

Subgroup representation and superordinate consensus. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 28, 887-899.

Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity enhancement

strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 27-57.

Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at

work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of

Management Review, 29, 459-478.

Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity theory. In P. Van Lange, A.

Kruglanski, & T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp.379-

398). Sage.

Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J.W. (1999). Self-categorization, commitment to

the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.

Elsbach, K. D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2020). Creating high‐impact literature reviews: An

argument for ‘integrative reviews’. Journal of Management Studies, 57, 1277-1289.

Epitropaki, O., Kark, R., Mainemelis, C., & Lord, R.G. (2017). Leadership and followership

identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 104-129.

Esler, P. (2021). 2 Corinthians: A social identity commentary. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Fischer, T., Hambrick, D. C., Sajons, G. B., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2020). Beyond the

ritualized use of questionnaires: Toward a science of actual behaviors and psychological

states. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(4), 101449.

Fischer, T., Tian, A. W., Lee, A., & Hughes, D. J. (2021). Abusive supervision: A Systematic

review and fundamental rethink. The Leadership Quarterly, 101540.

Fleishman, E. A. (1995). Consideration and structure: Another look at their role in leadership

research. In F. Dansereau, & F. J. Yammarino, (Eds.) Leadership: The multiple-level

approaches (pp. 51-60). JAI Press.

Fleming, K., Millar, C., & Culpin, V. (2018). From hollow hero to expert empathiser:

Leadership in transition. Journal of Management Development, 37, 606-612.

Ford, J., Harding, N. H., Gilmore, S., & Richardson, S. (2017). Becoming the leader:



Leadership as material presence. Organization Studies, 38, 1553-1571.

Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Mertens, N., Mallett, C. J., & Boen, F.

(2020). All for us and us for all: Introducing the 5R Shared Leadership Program.

Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 51, 101762.

Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F.

(2015). Believing in ‘us’: Exploring leaders’ capacity to enhance team confidence and

performance by building a sense of shared social identity. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: Applied, 121, 89-100.

Fransen, K., McEwan, D., & Sarkar, M. (2020). The impact of identity leadership on team

functioning and well-being in team sport: Is psychological safety the missing

link? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 51, 101763.

Fransen, K., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Vanbeselaere, N., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F.

(2016). We will be champions: Leaders’ confidence in ‘us’ inspires team members’ team

confidence and performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports,

26, 1455-1469.

Furtner, M. R., Rauthmann, J. F., & Sachse, P. (2011). The self-loving self-leader: an

examination of the relationship between self-leadership and the dark triad. Social

Behavior and Personality, 39, 369-379.

Gaffney, A. M., Rast III, D. E., & Hogg, M. A. (2018). Uncertainty and influence: The

advantages (and disadvantages) of being atypical. Journal of Social Issues, 74(1), 20-35.

Gaffney, A. M., Rast III, D. E., Hackett, J. D., & Hogg, M. A. (2014). Further to the right:

Uncertainty, political polarization and the American “Tea Party” movement. Social

Influence, 9, 272-288.

Gaffney, A. M., Sherburne, B., Hackett, J. D., Rast III, D. E., & Hohman, Z. P. (2019). The

transformative and informative nature of elections: Representation, schism, and

exit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 88-104.

Galvin, B. M., Lange, D., & Ashforth, B. E. (2015). Narcissistic organizational identification:

Seeing oneself as central to the organization’s identity. Academy of Management

Review, 40(2), 163-181.

Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social myth? Human Relations,

45, 113-129.

*Giannella, V. A., Pagliaro, S., & Barreto, M. (2022). Leader’s morality, prototypicality, and

followers’ reactions. Leadership Quarterly,

Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W., & Sleebos, E. (2013). Team-oriented



leadership: The interactive effects of leader group prototypicality, accountability, and

team identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 658-667.

Gunter, H., & Rayner, S. (2020). The ‘next big thing’: A delineation of ‘fads’ and

‘fashions’. The Palgrave handbook of educational leadership and management discourse

(pp.1-17). Palgrave.

Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects

of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 23, 1087-1099.

Halevy, N., Berson, Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). The mainstream is not electable: When

vision triumphs over representativeness in leader emergence and

effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 893-904.

Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-awareness, identity, and leader development. In D. Day, S. J.

Zaccaro, S. M. Halpin (Eds.) Leader development for transforming organizations (pp.

173-196). Psychology Press.

Hammond, M., Clapp-Smith, R., & Palanski, M. (2017). Beyond (just) the workplace: A

theory of leader development across multiple domains. The Academy of Management

Review, 42, 481-498.

Harquail, C. V., & King, A. W. (2003). Organizational identity and embodied cognition: A

multi-level conceptual framework. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2003, e1-e6.

Hart, A. B. (Ed.). (2002). Selected addresses and public papers of Woodrow Wilson. Boni

and Liveright. (Originally published 1918).

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (1st Ed).

Sage (2nd Ed., 2004).

Haslam, S. A. Eggins, R. A., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). The ASPIRe model: Actualizing

Social and Personal Identity Resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 83-113.

Haslam, S. A., Fransen, K., & Boen, F. (Eds.) (2020). The new psychology of sport and

exercise: The social identity approach. Sage.

Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How

affirming a social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 27, 1469-1479.

Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2016). Rethinking the psychology of leadership: From

personal identity to social identity. Daedalus, 145(3), 21-34.



Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership:

Identity, influence and power (1st Ed). London and New York: Psychology Press. (2nd

Ed., 2020)

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D. & Platow, M. J. (2015) Leadership. In J. D. Wright (Ed.)

International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd Ed, pp. 648–654).

Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). Rethinking the nature of cruelty:

The role of identity leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist,

74, 809-822.

Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., & Peters, K. (2019). The importance of creating and

harnessing a sense of ‘us’: Social identity as the missing link between leadership and

health. In R. Williams, V. Kemp, S. A. Haslam, C. Haslam, K. S. Bhui, & S. Bailey

(Eds.), Social scaffolding: Applying the lessons of contemporary social science to health,

public mental health and healthcare (pp.302-311). Cambridge University Press.

Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Boyce, R.A., Mallett, C. J., & Fransen, K. (2017).

A social identity approach to leadership development: The 5R program. Journal of

Personnel Psychology, 16, 113-124.

Hay, A., & Hodgkinson, M. (2006). Rethinking leadership: A way forward for teaching

leadership? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 144-158.

Halevy, N., Berson, Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). The mainstream is not electable: When

vision triumphs over representativeness in leader emergence and

effectiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 893-904.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed?

Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74, 935-942.

Hiller, N. J. (2005). Understanding leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity: Constructs,

correlates, and outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences

and Engineering, 66(12-B), 6959.

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.

Hogg, M. A. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat

prejudice and conflict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32, 177-207.

Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology, 39, 69-126.



Hogg, M. A. (2021). Self-uncertainty and group identification: Consequences for social

identity, group behavior, intergroup relations, and society. Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology, 64, 263-316.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup

relations and group processes. London: Routledge.

Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification and leadership in small groups:

Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248-1263.

Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Social identity and leadership processes in

groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1-52.

Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, III D.E. (2012a). The social identity theory of

leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments.

European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304.

Hogg, M. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. III. (2012b). Intergroup leadership in

organizations: Leading across group and intergroup boundaries. Academy of

Management Review, 37, 232-255.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in

organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Intergroup behaviour, self-stereotyping and the salience

of social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 325-340.

Hogg, M. A., Turner, J. C., & David, B. (1990). Polarized norms and social frames of

reference: A test of the self-categorization theory of group polarization. Basic and

Applied Social Psychology, 11, 77-100.

Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71-75.

Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of

subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156.

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and

implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal

of World Business, 37, 3-10.

Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and

identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421-


Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness, and



consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of

Management Review, 35, 135–154.

Ibarra, H., Wittman, S., Petriglieri, G., & Day, D. V. (2014). Leadership and identity: An

examination of three theories and new research directions. In Day, D.V. (Ed), The Oxford

handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 289–305). Oxford University Press.

Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013). Women rising: The unseen barriers. Harvard Business

Review, 91(9), 60-66.

Jetten, J., Fielding, K., Mols, F., Crimston, C. & Haslam, S. A. (2021). Responding to climate

change disaster: The case of the 2019/2020 bushfires in Australia. European

Psychologist, 26, 161-171.

Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing identity: Predicting adjustment to

organizational restructure as a function of subgroup and superordinate identification.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 281-298.

Jiang, X., Snyder, K., Li, J., & Manz, C. C. (2021). How followers create leaders: The impact

of effective followership on leader emergence in self-managing teams. Group Dynamics:

Theory, Research, and Practice. Advance online


Johnson, R. E., Venus, M., Lanaj, K., Mao, C., & Chang, C. H. (2012). Leader identity as an

antecedent of the frequency and consistency of transformational, consideration, and

abusive leadership behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1262-1272.

*Jolly, P. M., Krylova, K. O., & Phillips, J. S. (2020). Leader intention, misconduct and

damaged relational follower identity: A moral decision making perspective. The

Leadership Quarterly, 101425.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of

consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 89, 36-51.

Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the

self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–


Karelaia, N., & Guillén, L. (2014). Me, a woman and a leader: Positive social identity and

identity conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 204-219.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York: Harper Collins.

Kellerman, B. (2016). Leadership–It’s a System, Not a Person! Daedalus, 145(3), 83-94.

Kempster, S. (2006). Leadership learning through lived experience: A process of



apprenticeship? Journal of Management & Organization, 12, 4-22.

Kershaw, C., Rast III, D. E., Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2021). Divided groups

need leadership: A study of the effectiveness of collective identity, dual identity, and

intergroup relational identity rhetoric. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51, 53-62.

*Khumalo, N., Dumont, K., & Waldus, S. (2022). Leaders’ influence on collective action: An

identity leadership perspective. Leadership Quarterly.

Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., Osteen, L. (2005).

Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student

Development, 46, 593-611.

Kragt, D., & Guenter, H. (2018). Why and when leadership training predicts effectiveness:

The role of leader identity and leadership experience. Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 39, 406-418.

Kroll, M. J., Toombs, L. A., & Wright, P. (2000). Napoleon’s tragic march home from

Moscow: Lessons in hubris. Academy of Management Perspectives, 14, 117-128.

Krug, H., Steffens, N. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2020). Doing it for the team: Soccer coaches’

identity leadership predicts players’ effort, turnover intentions, and performance.

Psychology of Sport & Exercise.

Kwok, N., Hanig, S., Brown, D. J., & Shen, W. (2018). How leader role identity influences

the process of leader emergence: A social network analysis. The Leadership

Quarterly, 29, 648-662.

Kwok, N., Shen, W., & Brown, D. J. (2021). I can, I am: Differential predictors of leader

efficacy and identity trajectories in leader development. The Leadership Quarterly,


Ladkin, D. (2020). What Donald Trump’s response to COVID-19 teaches us: It’s time for our

romance with leaders to end. Leadership, 16, 273-278.

Lanaj, K., Gabriel, A. S., & Chawla, N. (2021). The self-sacrificial nature of leader identity:

Understanding the costs and benefits at work and home. Journal of Applied Psychology,

106, 345–363.

Lee, G., Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Cruwys, T., & Grace, D. (2021).

Facilitating goals, tasks, and bonds via identity leadership: Understanding the therapeutic

working alliance as the outcome of social identity processes. Group Dynamics: Theory,

Research, and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/gdn0000170

Levine R. M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G., Reicher S. D. (2002). Self-categorization and

bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social



Psychology, 32, 1452-1463.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). Toxic leadership: When grand illusions masquerade as noble

visions. Leader to Leader, 36, 29-36.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and

corrupt politicians — and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press.

Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. G. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity.

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints on

prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. The

Leadership Quarterly, 12, 311–338.

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership

skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591–615.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory:

Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational

Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.

Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Perceptions of leadership and their implications in

organizations. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational

settings (pp. 129-154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lord, R. G. & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking

perceptions and performance (pp. 129-154). London: Unwin Hyman.

McLaren, C. D., Boardley, I. D., Benson, A. J., Martin, L. J., Fransen, K., Herbison, J. D., …

& Bruner, M. W. (2021). Follow the leader: Identity leadership and moral behaviour in

social situations among youth sport teammates. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 55,


McLean, B., & Elkind, P. (2013). The smartest guys in the room: The amazing rise and

scandalous fall of Enron. New York US: Penguin.

Maskor, M., Steffens, N. K., Peters, K. O., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). The secrets of leadership:

Insights from the commercial literature. Australian Journal of Management.

Mertens, N., Fransen, K., Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N., & Boen, F. (2020). Leading together

towards a stronger ‘us’: An experimental test of the effectiveness of the 5R shared

leadership program (5RS) in basketball teams. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,

23, 750-775

Mertens, N., Boen, F., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Bruner, M., Barker, J B.., & Slater, M.

J., & Fransen, K. (2021). Harnessing the power of ‘us’: A randomized wait-list controlled



trial of the 5R Shared Leadership Development Program (5RS) in basketball teams.

Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 24, 281-290.

Middleton, E. D., Walker, D. O., & Reichard, R. J. (2019). Developmental trajectories of

leader identity: Role of learning goal orientation. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 26, 495-509.

Miller, A. J., Slater, M. J., & Turner, M. J. (2021). The influence of identity leadership

principles on followers’ challenge and threat states and motor performance. Psychology of

Sport and Exercise, 54, 101909.

Miscenko, D., Guenter, H., & Day, D. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity

development over time. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 605–620.

Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., & Steffens, N. K. (2022). The social

identity approach to political leadership. In Huddie, L., Sears, D. O., & Levy, J. S. (Eds).

The Oxford handbook of political psychology (3rd ed). Oxford University Press.

Moss, S. A., Dowling, N., & Callanan, J. (2009). Towards an integrated model of leadership

and self regulation. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 162-176.

Mumford, M. D., & Fried, Y. (2014). Give them what they want or give them what they

need? Ideology in the study of leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(5),


Muir, D. (2014). Mentoring and leader identity development: A case study. Human Resource

Development Quarterly, 25, 349-379.

Nye, J. L., & Simonetta, L. G. (1996). Followers’ perceptions of group leaders. The impact of

recognition-based and inference-based processes. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.), What’s

social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp.

124-153). Newbury Park, CA & London: Sage.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality. Oxford:


Oc, B. (2018). Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape

leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 218-235.

Pestritto, R. J. (2005). Woodrow Wilson and the roots of modern liberalism. Rowman &


Peters, K., & Haslam, S. A. (2018a). I follow, therefore I lead: A longitudinal study of leader

and follower identity and leadership in the marines. British Journal of Psychology, 109,


Peters, K. & Haslam, S. A. (2018b). To be a good leader, start by being a good follower.



Harvard Business Review (August 8).


Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H., Jr. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s

best-run companies. HarperCollins Business.

Petit, V., & Bollaert, H. (2012). Flying too close to the sun? Hubris among CEOs and how to

prevent it. Journal of Business Ethics, 108, 265-283.

Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). There is no leadership

if no-one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group process. International Coaching

Psychology Review, 10, 20-37.

Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership

endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup

fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508-1519.

Platow, M. J., van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, B., & Spears, R.

(2006). A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: Considering

leader charisma from a self-categorization perspective. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 45, 303-320.

Postmes, T., & Jetten, J. (2006). Individuality and the group: Advances in social identity.

London: Sage.

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single‐item measure of social identification:

Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597–617.

Pyle, L. K. (2013). Changes in leadership self-efficacy, leader identity, capacity for socially

responsible leadership, and curiosity due to a structured leader development program.

Doctoral dissertation, James Madison University.

Raelin, J.A. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative

agency. Leadership, 12, 131–58.

Ramdass, J. V. (2022). Social identification processes help explain why group members

pursue specific leadership opportunities. Unpublished manuscript. Claremont Graduate


Rast III, D. E., Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2018). Intergroup leadership across

distinct subgroups and identities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1090-




Rast, D. E. III, van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2019). Intergroup relational identity:

Development and validation of a scale and construct. Group Processes and Intergroup

Relations, 23, 943-966.

Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2006). Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC

Prison Study. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 1-40.

Reicher, S. D. & Haslam, S. A. (2017). The politics of hope: Donald Trump as an

entrepreneur of identity. In M. Fitzduff (Ed.), The myth of rational politics:

Understanding the allure of Trumpism (pp.25-39). Praeger.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of

leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social

reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.

Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Working towards the experimenter:

Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based

followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 315-324.

Reicher, S. D., & Hopkins, N. (2001). Self and nation: Categorization, contestation and

mobilisation. Sage.

Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, and B. B. Lloyd (Eds), Cognition

and categorization (pp. 27–48). Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, S. A., & Pittinsky, T. L. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership

Quarterly, 17, 617-633.

Rost, J. C. (2008) Leadership definition. In A. Marturano & J. Gosling (Eds.) Leadership:

The key concepts (pp. 94–99). New York: Routledge.

Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader self-definition and leader self-

serving behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 509-529.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding

the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management

Review, 32, 549-572.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Penguin.

Scholl, A., Sassenberg, K., Ellemers, N., Scheepers, D., & De Wit, F. (2018). Highly

identified power‐holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and

social power within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 112-129.

Schyns, B., Kiefer, T., Kerschreiter, R., & Tymon, A. (2011). Teaching implicit leadership

theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a

difference. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10, 397–408.



*Selvanathan, H. P., Crimston, C., & Jetten, J. (2022). How being rooted in the past can

shape the future: The role of social identity continuity in the wish for a strong leader.

Leadership Quarterly.

Sieweke, J., & Santoni, S. (2020). Natural experiments in leadership research: An

introduction, review, and guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101338.

*Sewell, D. K., Ballard, T., & Steffens, N. K. (2021). Exemplifying “Us”: Integrating social

identity theory of leadership with cognitive models of categorization. The Leadership

Quarterly, 101517.

Slater, M. J., & Barker, J. B. (2019). Doing social identity leadership: Exploring the efficacy

of an identity leadership intervention on perceived leadership and mobilization in elite

disability soccer. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 31, 65-86.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining

ourselves through work relationships. Academy of management review, 32, 9-32.

Sluss, D. M., van Dick, R., & Thompson, B. S. (2011). Role theory in organizations: A

relational perspective. In S. Zedeck (ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational

psychology. Vol 1: Building and helping the organization (pp. 505–534). American

Psychological Association.

Smith, P., Haslam, S. A., & Nielsen, J. F. (2018). In search of identity leadership: An

ethnographic study of emergent influence in an interorganizational R&D team.

Organization Studies, 39, 1425-1447.

Steffens, N., & Haslam, S. A. (2013). Power through ‘us’: Leaders’ use of we-referencing

language predicts election victory. PLoS ONE, 8(10): e77952.

Steffens, N. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2021). The narcissistic appeal of leadership

theories. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. doi:

Steffens, N., Haslam, S. A., Kessler, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2013). Leader performance and

prototypicality: Their inter-relationship and impact on leaders’ identity entrepreneurship.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 606-613.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Peters, K., & Quiggin, J. (2020). Identity economics meets

identity leadership: Exploring the consequences of elevated CEO pay. The Leadership

Quarterly, 30, 101269.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2014). Up close and personal: Evidence that

shared social identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to

leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 296-313.



Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Platow, M. J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Ryan, M.

K., Jetten, J., Peters, K., & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management:

Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-

dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1001-1024.

Steffens, N. K., Munt, K. A., van Knippenberg, D., Platow, M. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2021a).

Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader

group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review, 11, 35-72.

Steffens, N. K., Peters, K., Kark, R. & Haslam, S. A. (2022). Leading through ‘I’ versus

‘we’: Comparing the predictive profile of leaders’ concern for leader identity and social

identity. Unpublished manuscript: University of Queensland.

Steffens, N. K., Slade, E., Haslam, S. A., Stevens, M., & Rees, T. (2019). Putting the ‘we’

into workout: The association of identity leadership with exercise class attendance and

effort, and the mediating role of group identification and comfort. Psychology of Sport &

Exercise, 45, 101544.

Steffens, N. K., Yang, J., Jetten, J., Haslam, S. A., & Lipponen, J. (2018). The unfolding

impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on burnout, work engagement, and turnover

intentions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 373-387.

Stevens, M., Rees, T., & Cruwys, T. (2021). Social identity leadership in sport and exercise:

Current status and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 101931.

Stevens, M., Rees, T., Coffee, P., Steffens, N. K., & Polman, R. & Haslam, S. A. (2019).

Leaders’ creation of shared identity impacts group members’ effort and performance:

Evidence from an exercise task. PLoS ONE, 14(7): e0218984

Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2000). Identity theory and social identity theory. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 63, 224-237.

Swann Jr, W. B., Gómez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J., & Huici, C. (2009). Identity fusion:

The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995-1011.

Swann Jr, W. B., Jetten, J., Gómez, Á., Whitehouse, H., & Bastian, B. (2012). When group

membership gets personal: a theory of identity fusion. Psychological Review, 119, 441.

Tajfel, H. (1972). La categorisation sociale (English trans.). In S. Moscovici (Ed.),

Introduction å la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1, pp. 272-302). Larousse.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin

& S. Worchel (eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).




Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Aligning identities, emotions, and beliefs

to create commitment to sustainable social and political action. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 13, 194-218.

Todorov, A. (2017). Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions: Princeton

University Press.

Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence

from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623-1626.

Tourish, D. (2013). The dark side of transformational leadership: A critical perspective.

London & New York: Routledge.

Truninger, M., Ruderman, M. N., Clerkin, C., Fernandez, K. C., & Cancro, D. (2020).

Sounds like a leader: An ascription–actuality approach to examining leader emergence

and effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, Advance online publication. doi:

Tubbs, S. L., & Schulz, E. (2006). Exploring a taxonomy of global leadership competencies

and meta-competencies. Journal of American Academy of Business, 8, 29-34.

Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),

Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. (p.21)

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Turner, J. C. (2005). Examining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1-22.

Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2001). Social identity, organizations and leadership. In M. E.

Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 25-65). Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).

Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. A. (1994). Self and collective:

Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454-463.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social

identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7,


van Dick, R., Lemoine, J. E., Steffens, N. K., Kerschreiter, R., Akfirat, S. A., Avanzi, L., …

& Haslam, S. A. (2018). Identity leadership going global: Validation of the Identity

Leadership Inventory across 20 countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational



Psychology, 91, 697-728.

van Dick, R. & Kerschreiter, R. (2016). The social identity approach to effective leadership:

An overview and some ideas on cross-cultural generalizability. Frontiers of Business

Research in China, 10, 363-384.

Van Hoorn, A. (2014). Individualism and the cultural roots of management practices. Journal

of Economic Behavior & Organization, 99, 53-68.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2005). Research

in leadership, self, and identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16, 495–499.

van Knippenberg, D. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and

leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078-1091.

van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leadership: A person-in-situation perspective. In K. Deaux &

M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 673–

700). Oxford University Press.

van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004).

Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership

Quarterly, 15, 825-856.

Waring, P. (1999). The rise of individualism in Australian industrial relations. New Zealand

Journal of Employment Relations, 24, 291-318.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T.

Parsons, Trans. & Eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. (Originally published


Yaffe, T., & Kark, R. (2011). Leading by example: The case of leader OCB. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96, 806-826.

Zheng, W., Meister, A., & Caza, B. B. (2021). The stories that make us: Leaders’ origin

stories and temporal identity work. Human Relations, 74, 1178-1210.

Zheng, W., & Muir, D. (2015). Embracing leadership: A multi-faceted model of leader

identity development. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 6, 630-656.

Looking for top-notch essay writing services? We've got you covered! Connect with our writing experts today. Placing your order is easy, taking less than 5 minutes. Click below to get started.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper