Leadership Endorsement: The Role of Distributive and Procedural Behavior in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts

Platow, Michael J.; Reid, Scott A.; Andrew, Sarah

doi:10.1177/1368430298011004

Cited by 67 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Again, the basis of leadership perception and endorsement is more firmly grounded in prototypicality as people identify more strongly with the group. Platow, Reid, and Andrew (1998) provided some indirect support for the leadership theory from a laboratory experiment in which they manipulated group salience (interpersonal vs. intergroup context), and whether a randomly appointed leader was procedurally fair-unfair and distributively fair-unfair (N = 132). If it is assumed that fairness is a general property of leadership schemas, but that ingroup favoritism is a generally prototypical and socially attractive property of group membership, then we would predict that distributively and procedurally ingroup favoring leaders would be more strongly endorsed under high-than low-salience conditions.…”

Section: Tests Of the Social Identity Theory Of Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, research on justice considerations in group contexts confirms that although distributive justice is complicated (intragroup fairness conflicting with intergroup bias), intragroup procedural justice is critical. According to the group value model of procedural justice, members feel more satisfied and more committed to the group if the leader is procedurally fair (Lind & Tyler, 1988;Tyler, 1997;Tyler, DeGoey, & Smith, 1996;Tyler & Lind, 1992; also see Platow, Reid, & Andrew, 1998).…”

Section: Social Attractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

Hogg¹

2001

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

1,677

1,707

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A social identity theory of leadership is described that views leadership as a group process generated by social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization processes associated with social identity. Group Over the past 25 years social psychology has placed relatively little emphasis on the study of leadership. This is probably associated with the well-documented decline during the 1960s and 1970s of interest in small group research, the associated ascendency of social cognition, the European emphasis on large scale intergroup relations, and the "outsourcing" of small group and leadership research to organizational and management departments (for historical overviews, see

show abstract

Section: Tests Of the Social Identity Theory Of Leadershipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Social Attractionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

Hogg¹

2001

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

1,677

1,707

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Study 2 is a laboratory experiment in which we manipulate leader prototypicality and collective identification orthogonally. Here, we include support for the leader as an indicator of endorsement of prototypical leaders (e.g., Platow et al, 1998) that is also influenced by procedural fairness (e.g., Huo et al, 1996).…”

Section: Overview Of Predictions and Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an index of support for the leader, we asked: "Do you want to vote the leader away", "Do you want the group to turn against the leader", and "Do you want to oppose the leader ( = .85; based on Platow et al, 1998). To facilitate comparison with Study 1, we reverse coded this scale such that higher scores reflected more support for the leader.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control?

Dijke

Cremer

2010

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explored why strongly identifying followers endorse prototypical leaders by addressing the role of procedural fairness in this process. We introduced the distinction between procedural fairness rules relating to leader benevolence (i.e. whether the leader supports the group's interests) and follower control (i.e., whether followers can influence the leader's decisions). We predicted that strongly identifying group members endorse prototypical leaders because they perceive such leaders as acting in line with benevolence related fairness rules rather than because such leaders are perceived as giving followerscontrol. An organizational field study and a laboratory experiment revealed support for these ideas. Our results thus provide insights into why prototypical leaders are endorsed among strongly identifying followers. They also have implications for the procedural fairness literature in showing that frequently studied procedural fairness rules (e.g. voice) do not explain endorsement of leaders believed to support the group's interests. Keywords:Leadership, prototypicality, identification, procedural fairness, justice, legitimacy. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Prototypicality and Fairness 3 Procedural Fairness and Endorsement of Prototypical Leaders: Leader Benevolence orFollower Control?An important precondition for effective leadership is that followers support their leaders and voluntarily comply with their decisions (Yukl, 2006). Research consistently shows that followers are more willing to accept decisions and to support their leaders when they perceive that these leaders enact decision making procedures fairly (see Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005, for an overview). Findings like these have increased recognition of the relevance of procedural fairness for leadership research (De Cremer & Tyler, in press).The present study explores the role of procedural fairness in the social identity analysis of leadership. This analysis notes that leaders who represent important and salient group characteristics -prototypical leaders-are endorsed more, particularly among followers displaying strong group identification (see , for overviews).We aim to clarify why prototypical leaders are endorsed by addressing the mediating role of procedural fairness in this process. We argue that strongly identifying followers perceive prototypical leaders as acting in line with a number of procedural fairness rules. More specifically, we distinguish procedural fairness rules (cf. Leventhal, 1980) referring to follower control (i.e., whether followers can influence their leader's decisions) from rules referring to leader benevolence (i.e., whether the leader takes care of the group's interests).We will argue that endorsement of prototypical leaders (as it occurs among high identifiers) is based on perceptions of leader benevolence, rather than on perceptions of follower control (see Figure 1, for a graphic depiction of our predictions). This distinction arguably has important consequences for our understanding of t...

show abstract

“…Whereas the majority of studies on the relationship between group membership and justice focus on differences in reactions to decisions in interpersonal vs. intergroup relations (e.g. Haslam, 2001;Platow, Reid, & Andrew, 1998;Wenzel, 2001), research on the group membership effect focuses on differences in people's reactions to decisions from ingroup vs. outgroup authorities. In general, the group membership effect seems to imply that people usually do not respond very strongly to procedures when confronted with an outgroup authority (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Ståhl

Prooijen

Vermunt

2004

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup authorities to be strongly affected by procedural fairness, the available outcome information should be ambiguous. Furthermore, we argue that people confronted with an outgroup authority react particularly negatively to unfair procedures that give them negative outcome expectancies. These patterns are not expected in encounters with ingroup authorities. Two experiments support our line of reasoning. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for the integration of theoretical perspectives on procedural justice.

show abstract

Leadership Endorsement: The Role of Distributive and Procedural Behavior in Interpersonal and Intergroup Contexts

Cited by 67 publications

References 42 publications

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

A Social Identity Theory of Leadership

Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control?

On the psychology of procedural justice: reactions to procedures of ingroup vs. outgroup authorities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About