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.