Intergroup Leadership Across Distinct Subgroups and Identities

Abstract

Resolving intergroup conflict is a significant and often arduous leadership challenge, yet existing theory and research rarely, if ever, discuss or examine this situation. Leaders confront a significant challenge when they provide leadership across deep divisions between distinct subgroups defined by self-contained identities-The challenge is to avoid provoking subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. Drawing on intergroup leadership theory, three studies were conducted to test the core hypothesis that, where identity threat exists, leaders promoting an intergroup relational identity will be better evaluated and are more effective than leaders promoting a collective identity; in the absence of threat, leaders promoting a collective identity will prevail. Studies 1 and 2 ( N = 170; N = 120) supported this general proposition. Study 3 ( N = 136) extended these findings, showing that leaders promoting an intergroup relational identity, but not a collective identity, improved intergroup attitudes when participants experienced an identity distinctiveness threat.

Intergroup Leadership: How Leaders Can Enhance Performance of Humanitarian Operations

“…Against the background of strained local-expatriate subgroup relations, recent theoretical advancement in the form of Intergroup Leadership Theory bears particular relevance (Hogg 2015, Hogg et al 2012, Pittinsky and Simon 2007. This theory posits that, if multiple subgroups cannot be sensibly merged into a bigger collective, then the effectiveness of intergroup relations rests on creating an intergroup relational identity, which defines one's individual self in terms of his or her subgroup's relationship with other relevant subgroups (Rast et al 2018) (e.g., being an expatriate subgroup member would then, by definition, mean having a cooperative relationship with local peers). Leadership in these contexts thus becomes an intergroup role.…”

“…Major leadership theories (e.g., Charismatic-Transformational Leadership Theory) do not address the challenges of leading multiple subgroups in the organization (Hogg et al 2012). Intergroup leadership offers a theoretical framework to address these intergroup challenges, but it so far has only been studied with an experimental design and a European student sample (see Rast et al 2018). By offering empirical field insights from the context of humanitarian operations, where the odds against cooperation due to clear subgroup demarcation are greater than in any regular company/student contexts, our results not only provide suitable external validation and generalizability (Simons et al 2017) but can also be extended to extreme contexts that may be of interest to leadership research (cf.…”

Divided groups need leadership: A study of the effectiveness of collective identity, dual identity, and intergroup relational identity rhetoric

“…Although sharing a theoretical background in social identity theory, three approaches propose different solutions for reducing intergroup conflict. A comparison between two of these solutions demonstrated when subgroup members felt their identity distinctiveness was threatened, the leader promoting an intergroup relational identity, compared to a collective identity, was evaluated more favorably (Rast et al., 2018). An intergroup relational identity emphasizes the distinctiveness of the subgroups while focusing on their mutually beneficial interdependence within the larger collective (Hogg et al., 2012a).…”

The role of movement leaders in building intergroup solidarity for social change: A case of the electoral reform movement in Malaysia

“…() proposed that intergroup leaders would be successful if they can define the relationship among the different groups, for example, by emphasizing the interdependence and mutually beneficial relationships between groups. This is especially important when groups may experience threats to their distinctive identities if they are united under a common superordinate group that does not recognize intergroup differences (Rast, Hogg, & van Knippenberg, ). Our research shows how Bersih movement leaders directly addressed group differences to promote intergroup solidarity for social change.…”