Predicting leadership relationships: The importance of collective identity

Chrobot‐Mason, Donna; Gerbasi, Alexandra; Cullen-Lester, Kristin L.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.003

Cited by 54 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, such individuals may be less inclined to grant or be granted a leadership identity and, thus, less likely to influence or be influenced by others (Chrobot‐Mason et al . ). This builds on O'Toole et al .’s (, p. 251) warning that ‘SL for most people is simply counterintuitive’.…”

Section: Leadership In Commercial and Non‐commercial Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Relatedly, Shondrick et al (2010) caution that SL will be rejected where individuals' implicit leadership theories lack categories for encoding SL behaviours and therefore do not recognize it. Consequently, such individuals may be less inclined to grant or be granted a leadership identity and, thus, less likely to influence or be influenced by others (Chrobot-Mason et al 2016). This builds on O' Toole et al's (2002, p. 251) warning that 'SL for most people is simply counterintuitive'.…”

Section: Leadership In Commercial and Non-commercial Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

Sweeney

Clarke

Higgs

2018

Int J Management Reviews

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of context has been well established in studies of leadership (Bryman, A. and Stephens, M. (1996). The importance of context: qualitative research and the study of leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 7, pp. 353–371; Pettigrew, A. and Whipp, R. (1991). Managing Change for Competitive Success. Oxford: Blackwell). However, recent reviews of shared leadership have tended to merge findings across commercial and non‐commercial settings, disregarding contextual differences in these distinctive domains. Acknowledging that the challenges of leadership may vary in different organizational contexts, this paper argues that a focused review of shared leadership in commercial organizations (COs) is needed. The authors thus systematically review findings from over twenty years of empirical research on the practice of shared leadership in commercial organizations, critically reviewing definitions, theoretical dispositions and measurement approaches adopted in the field, before evaluating the impact of shared leadership on performance in this context. Findings from commercial and non‐ commercial organizations are then compared, highlighting significant differences in the conceptualization of shared leadership in these distinct settings. Contributing to theory in this field, a framework is developed, mapping the landscape of current research in commercial contexts, revealing critical gaps in our present understanding of shared leadership processes. Consequently, a model summarizing a proposed research agenda for future studies is provided, highlighting the need for such research to focus on the interactions of individuals as they share in the leadership of their team.

show abstract

Section: Leadership In Commercial and Non‐commercial Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Leadership In Commercial and Non-commercial Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

Sweeney

Clarke

Higgs

2018

Int J Management Reviews

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this perspective "leadership is exercised when ideas expressed in talk or action are recognized by others as capable of progressing tasks or problems which are important to them" (Robinson, 2001, p.93), implying that the influence process at the heart of leadership relates to a process of legitimation in which ideas, beliefs, and behaviors are understood to be a valid reflection of a group's shared purpose (Chrobot-Mason et al, 2016;Drori & Honig, 2013;Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003;Johnson, Dowd, & Ridgeway, 2006). In this sense, leadership centers on common, meaningful images of the future (Parry & Bryman, 2006) that create and enact a sense of collective value and shared identity (Chrobot-Mason, Gerbasi & Cullen-Lester, 2016;Haslam et al, 2011;Ospina & Sorensen, 2006;Reicher, Haslam & Hopkins, 2005;Stam, Lord, Knippenberg & Wisse, 2014) and which ultimately organize and determine a group's experience of social reality and experience of itself (Kelly, 2014). This focus on a shared group identity suggests that individuals who are seen as representative or prototypical of a group (e.g., of its values and norms) are more likely to be seen by other group members as being in a position both to advance group interests and to inform them about matters pertaining to their shared identity (e.g., appropriate behavior and goals; Chrobot-Mason et al, 2016;Haslam et al, 2011;Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003;Rast, Gaffney, Hogg, & Crisp, 2012).…”

Section: Relational Identity and Group Process Perspectives On Leadmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Search of Identity Leadership: An ethnographic study of emergent influence in an interorganizational R&D team

Smith

Haslam

Nielsen

2017

Organization Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent trends in the leadership literature have advanced a relational and processual perspective that sheds light on the way leadership emerges and evolves in dynamic and flexible organizations. However, very few empirical studies have explored these processes over an extended period. To address this lacuna, we report findings from a three-year ethnographic study that explored the emergence and development of leadership in a selfmanaged interorganizational R&D team. Findings show that in the context of various events that impacted on the team, leadership emerged through interactions, processes, and practices that were perceived by team members to develop and advance shared goals and shared identity. Leadership responses to uncertainty surrounding the project were generally legitimated by team members' background and expertise in relation to this shared identity, while a lack of perceived legitimacy also compromised leadership. These observations are consistent with arguments that leadership revolves around the creation and enactment of shared social identity. However, they also suggest that the form and nature of leadership is hard to predict because it is heavily structured by specific identity-relevant practices and perceptions that arise in the context of unforeseeable events.

show abstract

“…The Relationships Influence is consistent with the view of leadership as a continuing process that resides in the culturally constructed, agreed‐upon interactions between leaders and followers, rather than in the leader or in the followers (Clifton, ; DeRue & Ashford, ; Uhl‐Bien & Ospina, ). Chrobot‐Mason, Gerbasi, and Cullen‐Lester () suggested that leadership is “a network of influence relationships”; thus, leadership resides in the social process, rather than in a single individual (p. 298). They, like Lord et al (), called attention to the multi‐level, situational, multi‐individual perspectives on leadership that are becoming more prominent.…”

Section: The Integrated Capacious Model: Fusing Systems Influences mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Capacious Model and Leader Identity: An Integrative Framework

Campbell¹,

Shollen²,

Egan³

et al. 2019

J of Leadership Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Integrated Capacious Model of Leadership Identities Construction (ICM) is a framework for understanding leader identity that integrates four extant leader identity theories with the systems and influences in the Capacious Model of leader identity. The ICM's systems (Individual System, Microsystem, Mesosystem, Exosystem, Macrosystem, and Chronosystem) contextualize leader identity in time and space; its influences (Purpose/Calling, Self‐Identity, Social Identity, and Relationships) pinpoint select factors that affect the construction of leader identities; and its integrated theories (Narrative Identity, Identity Theory, Social Identity Theory, and Social Constructionism) address the leader identity construction process. The ICM speaks to calls for interdisciplinary, multi‐level frameworks that are situated within the stream of scholarly literature on leader identity, as the model presents leader identity as a construct located across space, time, and people, rather than the purview of a heroic leader or single instance of identity claiming. Connecting established identity theories, systems, and influences results in a descriptive, practical model of leader identity. Examples are provided of the practical utility of using the ICM as a diagnostic tool for constructing a leader identity, designing leader development programs, and identifying gaps in leader identity scholarship.

show abstract

Predicting leadership relationships: The importance of collective identity

Cited by 54 publications

References 56 publications

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

Shared Leadership in Commercial Organizations: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Theoretical Frameworks and Organizational Outcomes

In Search of Identity Leadership: An ethnographic study of emergent influence in an interorganizational R&D team

The Capacious Model and Leader Identity: An Integrative Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About