Relations Group Processes & Intergroup

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations http://gpi.sagepub.com/

Leading groups: Leadership as a group process Geoff Thomas, Robin Martin and Ronald E. Riggio Group Processes Intergroup Relations 2013 16: 3 DOI: 10.1177/1368430212462497 The online version of this article can be found at: http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/16/1/3

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Group Processes & Intergroup Relations can be found at: Email Alerts: http://gpi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://gpi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/16/1/3.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jan 10, 2013 What is This?

Downloaded from gpi.sagepub.com by guest on October 11, 2013

462497 2013

16110.1177/1368430212462497Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsThomas et al.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Editorial

Leading groups: Leadership as a group process

G P I R

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) 3­–16 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430212462497 gpir.sagepub.com

Geoff Thomas,1 Robin Martin,1 and Ronald E. Riggio2

Abstract Although leadership is fundamentally a social psychological (and group) phenomenon, interest in the social psychology of leadership has waxed and waned over the years. The present article briefly reviews this chequered history and then discusses recent theoretical and empirical developments that extend the study of social cognition and social identity to the domain of leadership. In addition, we consider how the eight empirical articles that constitute this Special Issue relate to, and further, the study of leadership as a group process, and conclude by identifying fertile areas for future research. Keywords leadership, groups, group process, social cognition, social identity

Leadership is a ubiquitous feature of human societies. Anthropological evidence suggests that people have always lived in groups in which leader–follower relationships quickly and naturally emerge (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; van Vugt, 2006). Such leadership is viewed as an adaptive solution to the problem of how to coordinate collective action in the service of group goals (van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). Thus it is not surprising that social scientists have long been intrigued by the phenomenon of leadership, and in particular the process of leadership emergence and what differentiates leaders from followers and effective leaders from ineffective leaders. Consequently, a vast and sprawling literature on leadership has accumulated over the last 100 years (see Bass & Bass, 2008; Yukl & van Fleet, 1992) resulting in leadership becoming one of the most researched and multidisciplinary areas in all of the social sciences (Goethals, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004).

Yet, mainstream social psychological interest in leadership has waxed and waned over the years. At first glance, this trend is perplexing as social psychology and leadership should (and indeed, do) make conventional bedfellows. Gordon Allport (1954) defined social psychology as “an attempt to explain and understand how the thoughts, feelings and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others” (1954, p. 5). Although leadership has been variously construed, a widely accepted definition is that leadership is “a process of social influence through which an individual 1

Aston University, UK Claremont McKenna College, UK

2

Corresponding author: Geoff Thomas, Work and Organisational Psychology Group, Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. Email: [email protected]

4 enlists and mobilizes the aid of others in the attainment of a collective goal” (Chemers, 2001, p. 376). The predominant theme in virtually all definitions of leadership is that leaders deal in the currency of influence, but via motivation and enabling rather than coercion (House & Javidan, 2004; Martin, Epitropaki, Thomas, & Topaka, 2010; Yukl, 2010). Indeed, there is good empirical evidence within the organizational psychology literature that leaders have a strong influence over group effectiveness—for better and for worse (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008; cf. Meindl, 1995). For example, research on managerial succession has consistently shown that changes in leadership are often followed by changes in team performance (Barrick, Day, Lord, & Alexander, 1991; Joyce, Nohria, & Robertson, 2003), and that the extent of leadership influence ranges from 20% to 45% depending upon the measure of organizational performance (Day & Lord, 1988; Thomas, 1988). In contrast, the leadership derailment literature suggests that the base rate of managerial incompetence is estimated to be 50% (Hogan, Curphy, & Hogan, 1994), and that surveys reveal that 65– 75% of employees in any given organization report that the worst aspect of their job is their manager (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005). Thus, it is hard to envisage any other area of investigation more germane to Allport’s classic definition of social psychology than the study of leadership. It is interesting to briefly track the chequered history of the social psychology of leadership (see Hogg, 2005, 2007, for a more detailed review). Traditionally, the topic of leadership was at the forefront of social psychology, especially during the heyday of research on small group dynamics (e.g., Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Indeed, as Hogg (2007) observed many of the classic and most influential studies in social psychology were focused on leadership (e.g., Bales, 1950; Hollander, 1958; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Sheriff, 1966). Leadership arguably reached the zenith of its influence with Fiedler’s (1964, 1978) contingency theory which became prominent in the mainstream literature of both social and organizational psychology. According to

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) Fiedler’s approach effective leadership was a function of matching a leader’s behavioral style to the circumstances of the group that he or she led. During the 1970s and 1980s, however, interest in the social psychology of leadership rapidly declined. Arguably, the major reason for this demise is that intragroup research fell out of favor with social psychologists (Abrams & Hogg, 1998; Moreland, Hogg, & Hains, 1994; Sanna & Parks, 1997), leading to Steiner’s (1974, p. 94) oftquoted lament about “whatever happened to the group in social psychology.” The focus of mainstream social psychological interest shifted to the study of social perception and social cognition, and group researchers became increasingly interested in intergroup relations (see Moreland et al., 1994). In essence, the fate of social psychological research on leadership mirrored the decline of small group research in social psychology. The mantle, however, was taken up by organizational psychologists (Sanna & Parks, 1997). During this time, in mainstream organizational psychology researchers continued to test contingency theories of leadership (Fiedler & House, 1994), and applied and extended classic social psychological theories of social exchange (e.g., Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) to explain the interpersonal dynamics of leader–follower relationships in work groups (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Cashman, 1975). By emphasizing the nature and the quality of the relationship between leaders and followers, this theory of leader–member exchanges (LMX) was the first to stress that leadership was not just a top–down process, but it is a reciprocal relationship in which leaders and followers mutually influence each other (see Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Martin et al., 2010). Hence, the social psychology of leadership found a natural home outside of the social psychology mainstream—in the organizational psychology literature (Hogg, 2007; House & Aditya, 1997). Recently, however, mainstream social psychology has rekindled its interest in leadership (and group phenomena). This renaissance is characterized by new theoretical approaches that extend the study of social cognition and social identity to the arena of leadership (e.g., see Ellemers,

Thomas et al. DeGilder, & Haslam, 2004; Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, in press; Lord, 1985; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005; Ryan & Haslam, 2007; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). In general, the leadership literature has been predominantly leader-centric in its focus (for important exceptions, see Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Hollander, 1964; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kerr & Jermier, 1978; Pearce & Conger, 2003; Riggio, Chaleff, Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Schyns & Meindl, 2005), and thus has largely reduced the complexity of the leadership process to the individual differences and characteristics of leaders (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011). As such, most leadership theories have neglected the larger social context in which the leader is embedded (Lord, Brown, & Harvey, 2001). Therefore, this new social psychology of leadership helps to redress the balance in the leadership literature by providing a social cognitive framework for social psychology to reexamine leadership in the broader group context (for a review, see Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, 2007). The present Special Issue was therefore intended to encourage research, facilitate theoretical integration and draw attention to developments in this new social psychology of leadership. With these brief introductory comments, we now turn to a concise overview of the eight articles included within this Special Issue. We first introduce the notion of leadership as a social cognitive process by briefly describing the theoretical background to implicit leadership theories and how followers categorize someone as a leader. Within this section, we also review the three empirical papers that broadly adopt this social cognitive approach to leadership. Then in the next section we introduce the social identity theory of group leadership, and review the five empirical articles that apply and extend the new, more overtly group-based approach to leadership across a variety of leadership contexts. We conclude our introductory article by briefly summarizing the collective contributions of the empirical studies in this Special Issue to the understanding of the social psychology of leadership, and highlight a number of promising areas for future research.

5

Leadership as a Social Cognitive Process How do followers know whether someone is a good or bad leader? From a social cognitive standpoint, to answer this question it is not sufficient to focus on the inherently good or bad qualities of a leader because followers’ implicit theories of effective leadership will not necessarily match scientific theories (e.g., trait theory) of leadership (Lord et al., 1984). Followers’ social cognition will include chronically accessible knowledge structures or schemas that are likely to predate—and be causally related to—judgments and decisions about leadership endorsement and effectiveness. By taking a leader-centric approach to leadership, leadership researchers have traditionally neglected the important role of followers’ social cognition in mediating and moderating the effect of leadership behavior on followers’ judgments and behavior (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004). As such, leadership is to an important degree socially constructed; it is as much in the eye of the beholder as in the qualities of the beheld (Haslam et al., 2011; Nye, 2002; Shondrick & Lord, 2010). The upshot of this discussion is that “if leadership resides, at least in part, in the minds of followers, then it is imperative to discover what followers are thinking.” (Lord & Emrich, 2000, p. 551). Building upon these basic tenets of mainstream social cognition, Lord and his colleagues developed a recognition-based theory of leadership, leader categorization theory (also known as implicit leadership theory; ILT), to explain the structure and content of follower’s leadership schemas and the process and consequences of categorizing someone as a leader (e.g., Lord, 1985; Lord & Emrich, 2000; Lord et al., 1984; Lord & Hall, 2003; Lord & Maher, 1991; Shondrick & Lord, 2010). Leader categorization involves a prototype-matching process in which the better the fit between leader’s attributes and the follower’s leadership schema (or prototype), the more favorable are follower’s perceptions of the leader. Like other cognitive schemas, subjectively held implicit leadership theories differ in their specificity and are structured in a hierarchy ranging from

6 abstract schemas that apply to leaders in general to more concrete schemas that apply to leadership in specific contexts (Shondrick & Lord, 2010). The theory also asserts that leadership categorization has important ramifications for leader endorsement and leader influence, and ultimately leader effectiveness. Consistent with this view, Epitropaki and Martin (2005) found that highly prototypical leaders who matched followers’ implicit leadership theories were more likely to forge better quality relationships with their followers, and have a positive influence on their followers’ commitment and satisfaction at work. The three papers that adopt a leader categorization perspective in this Special Issue advance our understanding of the social cognition of leadership in several important ways. Blaker et al., in their paper, “The Height Leadership Advantage in Men and Women: Testing Evolutionary Psychology Predictions About the Perception of Tall Leaders” (2013) use a novel and integrative theoretical approach to experimentally investigate the “think leader think tall” prototype, and the underlying reasons for why it prevails in the minds of followers. These researchers found that for male leaders this height leadership advantage was in part explained by their perceived dominance, health and intelligence; whereas for female leaders this effect was fully mediated by perceived intelligence. This study, therefore contributes to the ILT literature by providing causal evidence for the implicit association between height and leadership, and for the underlying cognitive process that explains this leadership prototype. In addition, the results imply that ILTs are not only determined by past experiences and cultural stereotypes, but also through evolved or instinctive biases (King, Johnson, & van Vugt, 2009; van Vugt et al., 2008). Although, Lord and his colleagues have asserted that leadership prototypes are highly flexible cognitive structures that are reconstructed in situ to meet situational demands (Brown & Lord, 2001; Lord & Emrich, 2000), these results suggest that certain prototypes are likely to be less malleable. Finally, this study also sheds light on a different ILT—the sex bias in leadership emergence. It appears that the “think

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) leader think male” prototype can also be explained, at least in part, by height discrepancy. In a similar vein, Emery, Calvard, and Pierce, in their article, “Leadership as an Emergent Group Process: A Social Network Study of Personality, Leadership, and Followership” (2013) investigated the extent to which group members’ personality traits (as measured by the “Big Five”) and leader–follower similarity predicted the emergence of leaders and followers in the classic context of leaderless groups (e.g., Bales, 1950). Specifically, by measuring leaders’ and followers’ personalities and the extent to which group members sent and received leadership nominations, in this study, it was possible to determine which group members emerged as leaders and followers, the nature of those followers’ and leaders’ personalities, the particular style of leadership that emerged (i.e., task- vs. relationshiporiented leadership), the extent to which these leadership functions were shared between group members (i.e., shared leadership), and by implication the content of group members’ implicit theories of leadership and followership (Shondrick & Lord, 2010). It should be noted that this study has a number of important methodological strengths. In particular, the social network design of the study permits both the analysis of individual-level effects of emergent leadership and followership while controlling for both dyadic-level and network-level effects. In addition, the study is longitudinal, and therefore permits more confidence in the direction of these effects—personality leads to emergent leadership and followership (and not vice versa). It is rare for implicit theories of leadership and followership to be examined over time and over the entire life cycle of leaderless groups. An interesting and novel pattern of results emerged which have both significant theoretical and practical implications. In their article “The Impact of Shared Leadership on Teamwork Mental Models and Performance in Self-Directed Teams”, McIntyre and Foti (2013) provide a novel extension to the social cognitive approach to leadership by incorporating the notion of team mental

Thomas et al. models—cognitive structures individuals use to organize information about their dynamic team environment and the response patterns needed to manage these dynamics (Salas, Rosen, Burke, & Goodwin, 2009)—to the realm of leadership. Using a social network design (see also, Emery et al., 2013), the authors directly focus on the emerging notion of shared leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2003), or how teams appear to “coproduce” leadership in groups (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). These authors suggest that group members can develop a team mental model that either does or does not view leadership as a collective phenomenon. Their results, however, suggest that teams must accurately perceive that leadership is coproduced by the team members in order for the team to be effective. In other words, there is a difference between groups that truly share the leadership role and groups where leadership is not clearly identified and is presumed to be shared by the team. It is important to note that this study is the first to investigate the link between shared leadership and the degree of similarity and accuracy of mental models in teams. As such, this paper provides a nice segway between the two themes of our Special Issue—leadership as a social cognitive process and leadership as a group process. Notwithstanding the important contributions of the social cognitive approach to leadership, particularly in its emphasis on how followers’ social cognition mediates and moderates the influence of leadership on important outcomes, the main thrust of this perspective was on individual cognitive processes that categorize individuals as leaders (Hogg, 2001). Over the last decade, however, a new and more overtly group-focused approach to leadership has been developed.

Leadership as a Group Process Leadership invariably occurs within the context of a group. As Hogg (2001) noted, leadership is a relational property of groups; leaders can’t exist without a group of followers and followers can’t

7 exist without leaders. Moreover, as highlighted earlier, arguably the raison d’être of leadership is the coordination and achievement of group goals. Yet, given the ubiquity of groups they can fade into the background, and their impact can easily be underestimated or overlooked (cf. Scott, 1992). Recent advances in mainstream social psychology, however, have brought the construct of the group to the foreground of the leadership literature. The most prominent approach on leadership as a group process is provided by the social identity analysis of leadership (see Ellemers et al., 2004; Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Hogg et al., in press; Reichers et al., 2005; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). This social identity approach to leadership also focuses on the social cognition of group members, but importantly emphasizes the cognitive processes that are primarily associated with psychologically belonging to the group. Group membership provides people with a sense of identity—a social identity—and leaders express, epitomize, and shape this group identity. A basic principle of the social identity theory of leadership is that as group membership becomes more salient, and members identify more strongly with the group, leaders who are more prototypical of the group are deemed to be more effective than those less prototypical of the group (Hogg, 2001, 2005). Thus, leaders are categorized more in terms of whether they are prototypical of the values and norms of the group, and the extent to which they epitomize, preserve, and foster the social identity of the group, and less in terms of whether they match followers’ leadership schemas, but only when group-based identification processes are strong. There is already considerable empirical support for the social identity analysis of leadership (e.g., see Giessner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009; Haslam & Platow, 2001; Haslam et al., 2011; Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, et al., 2004; van Vugt & de Cremer, 1999), and the remaining five papers in this

8 Special Issue contribute to this burgeoning literature in several fundamental ways. In their article, “Intergroup Bias and Perceived Similarity: Effects of Successes and Failures on Support for In- and Out-Group Political Leaders”, Alabastro, Rast, Lac, Hogg, and Crano (2013) examined differences in perceived attitudinal similarity to in- and outgroup leaders among liberals and conservatives before and after the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Using a representative sample of the American electorate, this longitudinal study revealed that perceived similarity changed markedly from pre- to postelection. As expected, before the election both liberals and conservatives showed perceived similarity toward the ingroup leader. However, conservatives perceived McCain as highly dissimilar to themselves following his loss, and perceived Obama as highly similar to themselves following his win. Drawing upon the social identity theory of leadership and optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991, 2003), Alabastro et al. explained this reversal effect in terms of the transition from a preelection intergroup context to a postelection intragroup context. Interestingly, it seems likely that when faced with a threat to their social identity the conservatives (who lost) subsequently established a superordinate group (i.e., Americans) so as to preserve a positive social identity. This study advances work on leadership as a group process in at least two significant ways. First, it fills a lacuna in the leadership literature by nicely capturing the interplay of intergroup leadership and intragroup leadership. Finally, it provides one of the clearest and most powerful demonstrations of how leadership as an identity function can affect changes in leadership perceptions and support over time. Interestingly, people’s perceptions of leader–follower similarity weakened as a result of ingroup leader failure and strengthened as a result of outgroup leader success, even under conditions of strong preexisting group identification (cf. Giessner et al., 2009). The next two articles both investigate the role of social identification as a mediator of the effects of leadership on follower attitudes and behavior. Given that the social psychological

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) approach to leadership is inherently process-oriented it is good to see researchers addressing this underexplored area in the literature (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). Van Quaquebeke and Eckloff, in their paper, “Why Follow? The Interplay of Leader Categorization, Identification, and Feeling Respected” (2013) take a theoretically integrative approach by combining leader categorization theory with the identity-based approach to leadership. Specifically, across two large field studies in German organizations they found support for a moderated mediation model in which positive leader categorization stimulated followers to identify more with the leader, and in turn, became more open to leader influence. Moreover, this mediating effect of followers’ identification with their leaders was moderated (i.e., became weaker) when leaders treated their followers with increasing levels of disrespect. As such, these authors adopt a novel and interesting way of framing the interplay between cognitive and identity-based perspectives on leadership via the notion of relational identification with the leader and follower self-esteem enhancement (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). It is important to note that this study addresses two underexamined areas of the social identity approach to leadership: namely, the moderating effects of different leader behaviors on identity processes and the role of followers’ relational self-construal with their leaders in determining leader effectiveness (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, et al., 2004). In addition, it is rare in the social psychological literature of leadership for researchers to test such complex conceptual models (e.g., moderated mediation models, but see also Homan & Greer, 2013). Similarly, Huang and Lin, in their paper, “The Effects of Transformational Leadership on the Distinct Aspects of Social Identity” (2013) sought to cross-fertilize transformational leadership theory, the most researched approach in the mainstream leadership literature, with the groupbased identification approach to leadership. Based on a large Taiwanese organizational sample

Thomas et al. (N = 1,501), these authors showed that social identification mediated the impact of perceived transformational leadership on follower performance. This paper makes a number of significant contributions to the literature. The longitudinal multiwave design of the study, permitted tests (i.e., latent growth modelling) of intraindividual change in social identification over time, and provided rare evidence for the development of social identification over time (see also Alabastro et al., 2013, for an example of interindividual variation in social identification over time). This study also provides clear support for the tangible impact of identification-based leadership on follower inrole and extrarole performance; note that these effects were robust across time and across source. Finally, this research confirms and extends the social identity theory of leadership and its postulated link between attributions of charisma and the process of leader identification and endorsement (see Hogg, 2001). As such it answers the call for more research on the interplay between charismatic and transformational leadership and social identity leadership processes (Hogg, 2010). Homan and Greer, in their paper, “Considering Diversity: The Positive Effects of Considerate Leadership in Diverse Teams” (2013) draw on van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan’s (2004) categorization-elaboration model (an extension of social-categorization theory) to investigate whether leader consideration can ameliorate the negative group processes (i.e., subgroup formation) that result from categorization processes in diverse teams as well as influence the perceptions of the team’s diversity. These authors tested for mediation in two initial experiments and then tested the full moderated mediation model in a subsequent field study using a large sample of work teams taken from 96 Dutch organizations. The results yielded notable support for the beneficial impact of leadership on group processes. Specifically, considerate leaders improved team functioning for heterogeneous (but not homogenous) groups and that leader individuation, or the ability of the leader to treat members as unique individuals, explained the positive effects of considerate leadership on the functioning of diverse

9 teams. It is interesting to note that these results are consistent with the notion that social identity leadership processes are better suited to highly identified groups (Hogg, 2007). For example, Hogg et al. (2005) showed that when group identification was low, a personalized leadership style was most effective, whereas when group identification was high, a depersonalized leadership style that emphasized being a group member was most effective. Moreover, the finding that group members of diverse teams instinctively preferred considerate leaders is also consistent with leader categorization theory and its assumption that the content of followers’ prototypes are malleable and are readily adapted to the specific social context (Lord et al., 2001). Overall, this article offers compelling and converging evidence for the critical role of leadership in diverse teams. The final article in the Special Issue is broadly relevant to a classic topic in small group research, interpersonal relations within groups. In their paper, “A Meta-analytical Review of the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Leaders’ Conflict Management Strategies” Schlaerth, Ensari, and Christian (2013) meta-analytically investigated the relationship between emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies, and in particular the role of leadership as a moderator of this relationship. These authors found that emotional intelligence was moderately and positively related to conflict management— higher levels of emotional intelligence were associated with the use of more constructive conflict management strategies. Interestingly, this effect was weaker for leaders than for nonleaders. This research contributes to the leadership literature by showing that to a certain extent the role and status of being a leader buffers or lessens the need for emotional intelligence when dealing with interpersonal conflict. It is feasible that the power and status vested in the role of being a leader may lessen the quantity and intensity of interpersonal conflict, and thus the need for emotional intelligence, especially for dealing with interpersonal conflict between leaders and followers. It appears that emotional intelligence may not be as important for leaders as it is for

10 followers, and definitely not as important as populists claim (e.g., Goleman, 1995). This study also contributes to the ongoing scientific debate over the role of leader emotional intelligence in determining leader effectiveness (e.g., Antonakis, 2004; Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009; Riggio & Reichard, 2008), and thus has valuable theoretical, as well as practical, implications.

Conclusion Although a Special Issue cannot do justice to the resurgence of leadership in mainstream social psychology, the papers that follow span a variety of topics, are truly international in scope, and provide a flavor of this burgeoning literature. More importantly, they also provide fresh insights and genuinely represent important advances in our knowledge of leadership as a social psychological phenomenon. Although standard definitions of leadership focus on leaders as the primary agent of influence, collectively the Special Issue provides a more textured view of leadership. On the one hand, leaders can and do have an important influence on follower and group processes as well as outcomes (e.g., Homan & Greer, 2013; Huang & Lin, 2013). On the other hand, leaders are also influenced by follower cognition and group processes (e.g., Alabastro et al., 2013; Blaker et al., 2013; van Quequebeke & Eckloff, 2013). Thus, the Special Issue explores when and how leaders influence, and are influenced by, follower and group processes. In addressing these important questions, the researchers were guided by a wide array of theories. Indeed, one of the notable features of the Special Issue is the way that many investigators cross-fertilized theories from social psychology, mainstream leadership, organizational psychology, and evolutionary psychology to guide their research. Moreover, the research reported in these articles used diverse methods to capture leadership processes including experiments, field studies, longitudinal archival data, and social network methodology. It also explored leadership in a number of contexts, ranging from emergent leaders (and followers) in leaderless groups, to designated leaders in organizations, and elected

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) political leaders. Given their rigor and relevance, the conclusions that can be drawn from these studies are not only critical for testing and building theory, but they can also guide practical interventions for improving leadership effectiveness. Notwithstanding the strengths of these articles and the importance of their collective contribution, there are a number of fertile areas for further research. For example, the majority of social psychological research on leadership has tended to use leader emergence and leader endorsement as its outcome measures. Yet, leadership is more than just a popularity contest and keeping followers on side. Clearly followers’ attitudes and perceptions of the leader are important; however, leadership is typically defined in terms of individual and collective goal achievement and effectiveness (Martin et al., 2010). Therefore, we need to broaden our net of dependent variables beyond leadership preference and evaluation measures to encompass measures of leader effectiveness and behavioral outcomes, such as follower performance and citizenship behavior (e.g., Huang & Lin, 2013). In fact, Hogan and Kaiser (2005) go further and argue that because leadership is ultimately more concerned with collective—than individual— effectiveness, leadership researchers should treat group (and organizational) effectiveness as the “gold standard” for evaluating leadership (for a rare example, see Homan & Greer, 2013, and McIntyre & Foti, 2013). To this end, one of the future challenges for social psychologists is to demonstrate that the social cognitive and group processes associated with leadership have as much, if not more, explanatory power for understanding leadership effectiveness than the more leader-centric approaches to leadership (e.g., Haslam et al., 2011; Huang & Lin, 2013). Social identity processes in leadership remains a fruitful area to be mined. To date, research has focused predominantly on leadership and intragroup processes. Yet, as Hogg (2010, p. 729) noted, “Leaders lead groups in the context of, or against, other groups.” At its heart, social identity theory is an intergroup theory (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Hogg, 2001; Hogg & Abrams,

Thomas et al. 1988). Prototypicality and group identification is best understood in terms of the interplay between intragroup comparisons and intergroup comparisons, and thus leadership is influenced by intergroup relations (Hogg, 2001). As boundary spanners, leaders often provide the lens through which ingroups view outgroups, and thus are likely to play a pivotal role in ameliorating (e.g., Homans & Greer, 2013) or amplifying intergroup biases. Indeed, one possible tactic that leaders may use to maintain their power and group protoypicality is by ingroup favouritism (e.g., Platow, Reid, & Andrew, 1998), outgroup derogation or accentuating the threat posed by an appropriate outgroup (Hogg, 2005). Two of the articles in the Special Issue provide an interesting foray into the arena of intergroup leadership (see Alabastro et al., 2013, for an example of intergroup political leadership; Homans & Greer, 2013, for an example of intersubgroup leadership). There is still considerable scope, however, for further theory and research on intergroup leadership, and social psychology is best placed to fill this lacuna (e.g., Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012). Another productive avenue for further research is to further integrate social psychological theories and mainstream leadership theories. A prime candidate, for example, is the leader– member exchange theory (LMX) of leadership which was derived from social exchange theory. It is now widely held, and was foreshadowed earlier, that this dyadic approach would be complemented by a group-level perspective to examine leader–follower relations (Hogg et al., 2005; Martin et al., 2010). In particular, it is likely that followers will compare their LMX relationship with that of other followers in the group, and in terms of the wider group norms concerning leader–member relations, and that these judgments will affect the self-concept, perceptions of fairness, and ultimately follower (and group) performance. Hence, more research is needed to shed light on the role of social comparison processes, the target of such comparisons, the kinds of social comparisons engaged in (upward, downward, or lateral) and the outcomes of such comparisons for the individual and the wider

11 group (Martin et al., 2010). In addition, and as highlighted earlier, we believe that the social identity analysis of leadership has much to offer in understanding when LMX processes will be more or less effective. Finally, LMX theory would benefit from closer integration with theory and research into the social psychology of close interpersonal relationships (otherwise known as relationship science). For example, there are certain generic social cognitive processes concerning the development, maintenance, and enhancement of relationship quality that are likely to transcend virtually all kinds of relationships (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Clark & Reis, 1988), and this knowledge could potentially inform not only LMX theory, but also the leadership literature in general (for a review, see Martin et al., 2010). The emerging concept of shared leadership, where team members coproduce leadership, is an intriguing notion and the Emery et al. (2013) article reveals the role of personality in determining shared leadership, while the McIntyre and Foti (2013) paper explores the social cognitive processes involved. The ideas of teams that truly operate with shared or distributed leadership needs further exploration in order to fully understand the complex cognitive and behavioral processes involved in these teams. Finally, we are particularly pleased that the articles in this Special Issue represent authors from many nations, which mirrors the fact that the study of leadership processes has garnered international attention from scholars. Leadership in groups, as noted, has deep evolutionary roots, so it makes sense that it is seen as a relevant topic by social psychologists throughout the globe. In summary, the topic of leadership has experienced a renaissance in social psychology. Theoretical advances in social cognition, and more recently, social identity processes have been fruitfully integrated into the leadership literature. The take-home message of leadership as a group process helps to counterbalance the leader-centred approach that has dominated leadership research. The articles that follow in this Special Issue, collectively, make a substantial contribution by documenting when and how leaders influence, and are

12 influenced by, follower and group processes. Together, they provide original insights that enrich and expand the social psychological approach to leadership, and identify promising directions for further inquiry in this important field. References Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1998). Prospects for research in group processes and intergroup relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 7–20. doi: 10.1177/1368430298011002 Alabastro, A. B., Rast, III, D. E., Lac, A., Hogg, M. A., &Crano, W. D. (2013). Intergroup bias and perceived similarity: Effects of successes and failures on support for in- and outgroup political leaders. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 58–67. Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York, NY: Random House. Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “Big Five”: An extension and rejoinder. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 12, 171–182. doi: 10.1108/eb028991 Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence? Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247–261. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.01.006 Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barrick, M. R., Day, D. V., Lord, R. G., & Alexander, R. A. (1991). Assessing the utility of executive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 9–22. doi: 10.1016/10489843(91)90004-L Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 193–281). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Blaker, N. M., Rompa, I., Dessing, I. H., Vriend, A. F., Herschberg, C. & van Vugt, M. (2013). The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) evolutionary psychology predictions about the perception of tall leaders. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 17–27. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475–482. doi: 10.1177/0146167291175001 Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480–491). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Brown, D. J., & Lord, R. G. (2001). Leadership and perceiver cognitions: Moving beyond first order constructs. In M. London (Ed.), How people evaluate others in organizations: Person perception and interpersonal judgment in I/O psychology (pp. 181–202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (1968). Group dynamics – Research and theory. Evanston, IL: Row Peterson. Chemers, M. M. (2001). Leadership effectiveness: An integrative review. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 376–399). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Clark, M. S., & Reis, H. (1988). Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 609–672. doi: 10.1146/annurev. ps.39.020188.003141 Dansereau, F., Graen, G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78. doi: 10.1016/00305073(75)90005-7 Day, D. V., & Lord, R. G. (1988). Executive leadership and organizational performance: Suggestions for a new theory and methodology. Journal of Management, 14, 453–464. doi: 10.1177/014920638801 400308 DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x Dienesch, R. M., & Liden, R. C. (1986). Leader–member exchange model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 618–634. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1986.4306242 Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2004.13670967

Thomas et al. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (Eds.). (1999). Social identity: Context, commitment, content. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Emery, C., Calvard, T. S., & Pierce, M. E. (2013). Leadership as an emergent group process: A social network study of personality, leadership, and followership. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 28–45. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of implicit leadership theories, leader–member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659–676. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659 Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1978). The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 59–96). New York, NY: Academic Press. Fiedler, F. E., & House, R. J. (1994). Leadership theory and research: A report of progress. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Key reviews in managerial psychology: Concepts and research for practice (pp. 97–116). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 434–451. doi: 10.1016/j. leaqua.2009.03.012 Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G., & Burns, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). The encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books. Graen, G. B., & Cashman, J. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers (pp. 143–166). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader– member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5 Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469–1479. doi: 10.1177/01461672012711008

13 Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. London, UK: Psychology Press. Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 963–982. doi: 10.1002/job.600 Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.49.6.493 Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9, 169–180. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169 Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1 Hogg, M. A. (2005). Social Identity and leadership. In D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Social psychology of leadership. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 716–733). New York, NY: Guilford. Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1166–1206). New York, NY: Wiley. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, UK: Routledge. Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader– member exchange theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991–1004. doi: 10.1177/0146167204273098 Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2000.2791606 Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III (2012). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and intergroup boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 232–255. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0221

14 Hogg, M. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E., III (in press). The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology. Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127. doi: 10.1037/h0042501 Hollander, E. P. (1964). Leaders, groups, and influence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Homans, A.C., & Greer, L. L. (2013). Considering diversity: The positive effects of considerate leadership in diverse teams. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 105–125. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis. Journal of Management, 23, 409–473. doi: 10.1177/014920639702300306 House, R. J., & Javidan, M. (2004). Overview of Globe. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 societies (pp. 9–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30, 96–112. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005. 15281435 Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2013). The effects of transformational leadership on the distinct aspects of social identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 87–104. Joyce, W. F., Nohria, N., & Roberson, B. (2003). What really works: The 4+2 formula for sustained business success. New York, NY: Harper Business. Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51. Kaiser, R., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96–110. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96 Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375–403. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5 King, A. J., Johnson, D. D. P., & van Vugt, M. (2009). The origins and evolution of leadership. Current Biology, 19, R911–R916. doi: 10.1016/j. cub.2009.07.027 Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271–301.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87–128. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., & Harvey, J. L. (2001). System constraints on leadership perceptions, behavior and influence: An example of connectionist level processes. In M. A. Hogg & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 283–310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Lord, R. G., & Emrich, C. G. (2000). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 551–579. doi: 10.1016/ S1048-9843(00)00060-6 Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378. doi: 10.1016/00305073(84)90043-6 Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2003). Identity, leadership categorization, and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 48–64). London, UK: Sage. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Thomas, G., & Topakas, A. (2010). A critical review of leader–member relationship (LMX) research: Future prospects and directions. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 61–91. doi: 10.1002/9780470661628.ch2 McIntyre, H. H., & Foti, R. J. (2013). The impact of shared leadership on teamwork mental models and performance in self-directed teams. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 46–57. Meindl, J. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329–341. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8 Moreland, R. L., Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1994). Back to the future: Social psychological research on groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 527–555. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1994.1025 Nye, J. L. (2002). The eye of the follower: Information processing effects on attributions regarding leaders of small groups. Small Group Research, 33, 337–360. doi: 10.1177/10496402033003003

Thomas et al. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Platow, M. J., Reid, S. A., & Andrew, S. (1998). Leadership endorsement: The role of procedural and distributive behaviour in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 91–103. doi: 10.1177/1368430298011004 Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519. doi: 10.1177/01461672012711011 Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.06.007 Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Riggio, R. E., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The emotional and social intelligences of effective leadership: An emotional and social skill approach. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 169–185. doi: 10.1108/02683940810850808 Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women in precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572. doi: 10.5465/ AMR.2007.24351856 Sanna, L. J., & Parks, C. D. (1997). Group research trends in social and organizational psychology: Whatever happened to intragroup research? Psychological Science, 8, 261–267. doi: 10.1111/j.14679280.1997.tb00436.x Schlaerth, S., Ensari, N., & Christian, J. (2013). A meta-analytical review of the relationship between emotional intelligence and leaders’ conflict management strategies. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 126–136. Schyns, B., & Meindl, J. R. (2005). Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explorations. Leadership Horizons. Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

15 Shondrick, S. J., & Lord, R. G. (2010). Implicit leadership and follower theories: Dynamic structures for leadership perceptions, memory, and leader–follower processes. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25, 1–33. doi: 10.1002/9780470661628.ch1 Steiner, I. D. (1974). Whatever happened to the group in social psychology? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 94–108. doi: 10.1016/00221031(74)90058-4 Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Thomas, A. (1988). Does leadership make a difference to organizational performance? Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 388–400. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298–318. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002 Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008 Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership in organizations. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 243–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856. Van Quaquebeke, N., &Eckloff, T. (2013). Why follow? The interplay of leader categorization, identification, and feeling respected. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 68–86. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354–371. doi: 10.1207/s15327957 pspr1004_5 Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership in social dilemmas: The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 587– 599. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.587

16 Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182– 196. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182 Yukl, G. A. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 16(1) Yukl, G., & van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 147–197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.