A central debate among the dominant perspectives on leadership focuses on a leader who overcomes circumstances versus a leader who is defined by circumstances versus leadership as a combination of the individual and the environment. Reicher, Platow, & Haslam (2007) step outside the traditional debate by proposing that leadership is neither circumstance nor adaptation but a relationship. Stating “leadership arises out of a symbiotic relationship between leaders and followers,” Reicher et al. show how the role of relationships can change the focus from characteristics or context to social psychology and group dynamics.
Group influence on individual behavior
Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) found that groups influence individual psychology. An individual’s social identity is the part of a person that group membership defines. Social identity makes group behavior possible by allowing people to share identity, goals, and actions. When social identity exists among members of a group, the person who is best suited for influencing the group’s members is the person who best represents the group’s identity. To Reicher et al. (2007), this means that “the best leaders are prototypical of the group”; leaders not only belong to the group but they also embody that which distinguishes the group from other groups.
From the relationship perspective, the leader’s traits and behaviors must fit the culture of the follower. Anything that differentiates the leader from the followers can diminish leadership effectiveness. “Fitting in is important for gaining influence” (Reicher, Platow, & Haslam, 2007). In other words, the leader’s capacity to lead is diminished to the degree that the followers perceive the leader to be different from them. Miriam Erez’s (2002) meta-analysis of organizational culture research emphasized the importance of leadership fit by finding that managers must adjust their practices to match the cultural identity of subordinates. Fitting management practices with the culture requires that the manager understand the cultural values they represent and the cultural meaning of management practices.
Inequity undermines the leader
Reicher et al. (2007) provided an example of how an exorbitant salary can put a leader in an adversarial position with followers. Similarly, echoing Stacey Adam’s (1965) equity theory, demonstrating favoritism also causes an inequity that creates divisions between leaders and followers while de-motivating the out-group members. An effective leader should demonstrate fairness among the members of the group.
An important note here is that groups tend to reserve a sense of fairness for their own, not those outside of the group. To Reicher et al., “Leaders should favor those who support their own group over those who support another group”; otherwise, they will lose the confidence and support of their followers. However, leadership is more than conforming to the group norms; but is also about the capacity to shape those norms. Effective leaders mold the social identity of followers to fit the plans the leader promotes by positioning those plans as expressions of follower beliefs.
This last point is critical to consider when leading in cross-cultural or transnational environments. For example, in preparing to test the viability of collaborative learning in a traditional Japanese university classroom, Reicher et al. (2007) provide insight into the challenges of transforming learning behaviors as an outsider in a closed and static culture. Rather than introducing radically foreign concepts into the new environment, I hope to help students and faculty recognize a need to align classroom practices with societal values.
Collaboration and cooperation are core values of Japanese society. Still, Japanese education focuses almost exclusively on preparing individuals to pass tests. The Japanese higher education culture is even more static than in the USA. A static culture contributes to a system-wide failure of Japanese universities that cannot adapt to the emerging needs imposed by a dynamic global environment (Goodman, 2003; Poole, 2003).
Reciprocal identity among leader and follower
A core assumption of social psychology is that a reciprocal relationship exists between social identity and social reality (Aronson, 2008). Reicher et al. (2007) proposed that “identity influences the type of society people create and that society, in turn, influences the identity people to adopt.” If dissonance exists between identity and reality, people tend to discard identity for viable alternatives.
For example, in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, the founding fathers of a nation declared “all men are created equal” (US Declaration Ind.), establishing individual liberty as a core value of American identity; while the compromises made to drive ratification of the United States Constitution allowed for slavery to exist in American society.
The contradiction in value and practice established a cognitive dissonance in American society that contributed to a Civil War, which culminated in Abraham Lincoln’s (1863) restatement of and commitment to American values as being “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” (para. 1). A restatement of values did not suddenly change human nature. Still, it served as a vision for coalescing individuals to take collective action.
Continuing disconnects between values and behaviors contributed to the Civil Rights movement with a vision summarized by Martin Luther King (1963) as “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal” (para. 13). Riots, a restatement of principles, and assassinations did not suddenly transform human nature. Still, they helped to emphasize the conflict between values and actions within American society while serving as catalysts for transforming societal action to work toward closing the dissonance.
Today, barriers to individual liberty have not been universally eradicated in American society's attitudes, behaviors, and laws. Still, society continues to progress towards its stated vision and values.
An important consideration here is that a vision statement serves as a guiding star, not as a destination (Collins & Lazier, 1995). The vision guides the direction of individuals and society, but the journey never ends. If the leaders and the followers “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are granted with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (US Declaration Ind.), the vision will continue to influence societal development. If leaders and followers shift from the vision, their behaviors will follow.
Considering the above example against the new psychology of leadership, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America defined the vision. Still, leaders like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr. were able to shape and shift attitudes and behaviors toward the vision by clarifying the identity of the American character and by helping followers conceive those identities as substantial parts of their identity.
Leader dependence on followers
To the new psychology of leadership, effectiveness is not in the leader's hands; leaders are dependent on followers. For leadership to work, “leaders and followers must be bound by a shared identity and by the quest to use the identity as a blueprint for action” (Reicher, Platow, & Haslam, 2007). This shared social identity becomes the foundation of influence; by controlling identity, a leader “can change the world.” Leaders enhance effectiveness when they can influence followers to see that the group's interests align with their personal interests. Anything that sets the leader apart from the group weakens the leader’s possible influence.
Understanding shared identity as a foundation for influence emphasizes the importance of controlling perceptions while introducing questions about the leader's true character. Regarding perceptions, special interest groups may have no direct leadership role; however, they directly influence leaders and followers by manipulating media or social pressure.
Special interest groups seize or create opportunities to diminish the leadership effectiveness of political enemies by pointing out differences that set the leader apart from the followers. For example, when George H. W. Bush commented on the “amazing” scanning technology in a grocery store during a photo opportunity during the 1992 election, New York Times reporter Andrew Rosenthal (1992) implied that Bush was out of touch with middle-class voters because he had been secluded for “11 years in Washington’s choicest executive mansions” (para. 2). Editorial writers, comedians, and special interest groups leveraged the story to demonstrate the differences between a privileged “career politician” and the voting “middle-class” (para. 1).
Similarly, when President Barack Obama wore “mom jean’s” to throw out the first pitch at a baseball game, then wore a goofy helmet while riding a “Euro-wuss bike” in Martha’s Vineyard (West, 2010), comedians, critics, and even allies commented on how Obama seemed to be out of touch with his constituents. Other leaders would find that, despite being just as privileged and isolated as Bush and Obama, followers were more likely to accept their foibles because they perceived the leaders as being like them.
For example, Reicher et al. (2007) pointed out that Americans tended to forgive and reelect Bill Clinton for infidelities because the populace saw him as sharing their imperfections. Similarly, comfortably donning cowboy outfits and cycling gear, followers were initially inclined to forgive George W. Bush’s frequent gaffs because the general population saw him representing American ideals.
Character matters
Regarding character, the new psychology of leadership introduces questions about the degree to which leaders must change their own values or perceptions of their values to give the impression of fitting with the social identity.
For example, in a contentious meeting in which a school district superintendent solicited public input about the type of person they wanted to replace a controversial high school principal, a teacher declared that “leadership” was the most important thing she wanted from a new principal. The audience cheered and nodded in agreement. The unity collapsed when a parent asked, “We all seem to be saying we want a leader, but what does that mean? What is leadership?” The competing factions—teachers, parents, unions, special interests—could not agree on the definition of “leadership” because they all wanted someone who would represent the special interests of their political faction against others.
A regional PTA leader attempted to calm the contention by gaining the floor to declare, “a leader is someone who figures out what line everyone else is in, cuts in front, and says ‘follow me.’” To this person, an effective leader is a chameleon, a person who can identify and conform to the norms and demands of the dominant political faction. Her platitude caused a momentary pause as many heads nodded in agreement. However, an audience member commented that the PTA leader seemed to be using a cliché to describe a cowardly chameleon who would conform to the dominant special interest group when the community seemed to need a courageous leader who is willing and able to unite a divided community around building effective academic programs for students—not to conform to the interests of the most powerful special interest groups.
No consensus came from that meeting, and district administrators made the ultimate hiring decision behind closed doors. However, in addition to demonstrating the challenge of defining leadership, the meeting demonstrated how followers look for leaders who represent them and their interests against others.
Shared values boost leadership effectiveness
The new leadership psychology proposed by social psychologists like Reicher et al. (2007) holds that understanding the values and opinions of followers is a key to effective leadership [See: Image 7: The new psychology of leadership]. Leaders enhance effectiveness by interacting with followers to determine the group’s identity, purpose, and actions. Leadership does not require any fixed personality traits; the followers determine what leadership traits should emerge in the leader. This is because the leaders depend on follower cooperation and support. Rather than being a top-down process, leaders gain credibility by being among the followers. This does not mean that the leader must be a chameleon, but the leader must help define and shape the group’s identity and ends.
When fit and influence are the results of a natural process, the new leadership psychology helps illuminate the processes behind successful leadership. However, when leaders use their knowledge of the new psychology to create the illusion of fit, they may feed the ambivalence toward leadership that seems to flourish in contemporary society. Modern society has developed ambivalence toward leaders. Rather than celebrating leadership, modern society attempts to inoculate itself against the influence of leadership to avoid the Hitlers, Lenins, and Mussolini's (Aronson, 2008).
###
(C) 2021 by Brent Duncan. All rights reserved. For usage information, use the Synthegrate Contact form.