Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality

Abstract

This research advances a social identity approach to leadership through a meta-analysis examining four novel hypotheses that clarify the nature and impact of leader group prototypicality (the extent to which a leader is perceived to embody shared social identity). A random-effects meta-analysis ( k = 128, N = 32,834) reveals a moderate-to-large effect of prototypicality that holds across evaluative and behavioral outcomes. The effect is stronger (a) when prototypicality is conceptualized as the ideal-type rather than the average group member, (b) for stronger prototypes (indexed by group longevity), and (c) for group members in formal rather than nonformal leadership roles. The effect is not contingent on group prototypicality entailing differentiation from other (out)groups. Additionally, results provide meta-analytic evidence of widely examined key factors: follower group identification (which enhances the relationship) and leader group-serving behavior (which attenuates the relationship). Building on these findings, we outline the implications for the next wave of theoretical and empirical work.

War Against COVID‐19: How Is National Identification Linked With the Adoption of Disease‐Preventive Behaviors in China and the United States?

“…According to the social identity approach to leadership (Hogg, 2001;van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), the effectiveness of leadership depends on a sense of shared group membership between leader and followers (i.e., "we-ness"). Studies have shown that ingroup identifiers would consider a leader to be influential, effective, and trustworthy if they perceive this leader to be prototypical of the group (i.e., representing the group; e.g., Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; for a meta-analysis, see Steffens, Munt, van Knippenberg, Platow, & Haslam, 2021).…”

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

“…Identity prototypicality refers to the notion of being one of us (Haslam et al, 2011;Steffens, Haslam, Reicher, et al, 2014). Ample of evidence underscores the importance of leaders to be seen as one of us (rather than one of them) and representing what makes us special (Barreto & Hogg, 2017;Steffens et al, 2021;van Knippenberg, 2011). Identity advancement refers to the notion of doing it for us (Haslam et al, 2011;Steffens, Haslam, Reicher, et al, 2014).…”

Linking Identity Leadership and Team Performance: The Role of Group-Based Pride and Leader Political Skill

“…Firstly, our research contributes to the social identity approach of the leadership literature. Prior research has focused on the influence of leader identity prototypicality on employees and group outcomes or viewing leader identity prototypicality as a boundary condition that moderates the effectiveness of leadership behaviors (e.g., van Knippenberg, 2011;Steffens et al, 2021), ignoring the effect of identity leadership as a higher-order construct. As noted by van Dick et al (2018), a full scale with four dimensions allows researchers to better capture the richness of identity leadership.…”

“…Although a social identity approach of leadership has attracted considerable attention from researchers in the past two decades, most previous studies focus on theoretical articulation and the single dimension of leader identity prototypicality (Steffens et al, 2014). In this regard, existing empirical evidence has suggested that leader identity prototypicality contributes to leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg, 2011;Steffens et al, 2021). However, other equally significant aspects of identity leadership are neglected (Steffens et al, 2014).…”