Resolving intergroup conflict is a significant and often arduous leadership challenge, yet existing theory and research rarely, if ever, discuss or examine this situation. Leaders confront a significant challenge when they provide leadership across deep divisions between distinct subgroups defined by self-contained identities—The challenge is to avoid provoking subgroup identity distinctiveness threat. Drawing on intergroup leadership theory, three studies were conducted to test the core hypothesis that, where identity threat exists, leaders promoting an intergroup relational identity will be better evaluated and are more effective than leaders promoting a collective identity; in the absence of threat, leaders promoting a collective identity will prevail. Studies 1 and 2 (N = 170; N = 120) supported this general proposition. Study 3 (N = 136) extended these findings, showing that leaders promoting an intergroup relational identity, but not a collective identity, improved intergroup attitudes when participants experienced an identity distinctiveness threat.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (Eds.). (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
2.
AbramsD.HoggM. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In DovidioJ. F.HewstoneM.GlickP.EssesV. M. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179-193). London, England: SAGE.
3.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
4.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596-612. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
5.
BassB. M.RiggioR. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
BranscombeN. R.EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In EllemersN.SpearsR.DoosjeB. (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35-58). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
7.
BrewerM. B. (2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization, ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 785-804). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
BrewerM. B.GardnerW. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83-93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
9.
CranoW. D.BrewerM. B.LacA. (2015). Principles and methods of social research. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
CrispR. J.StoneC. H.HallN. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230-243. doi:10.1177/0146167205280908
11.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1084-1121). New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.LamoreauxM. J. (2009). Leadership across group divides: The challenges and potential of a common group identity. In PittinskyT. L. (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference (pp. 3-16). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751
14.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
15.
EgginsR. A.HaslamS. A.ReynoldsK. J. (2002). Social identity and negotiation: Subgroup representation and superordinate consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 887-899. doi:10.1177/014616720202800703
16.
EllemersN.De GilderD.HaslamS. 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
17.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
18.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.AnastasioP. A.BachmanB. A.RustM. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004
19.
GoethalsG. R.SorensonG. J.BurnsJ. M. (Eds.). (2004). Encyclopedia of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (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
21.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.PlatowM. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
22.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1
23.
HoggM. A. (2009). From group conflict to social harmony: Leading across diverse and conflicting social identities. In PittinskyT. L. (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference (pp. 17-30). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
24.
HoggM. A. (2015). Constructive leadership across groups: How leaders can combat prejudice and conflict between subgroups. Advances in Group Processes, 32, 177-207. doi:10.1108/S0882-614520150000032007
25.
HoggM. A.HornseyM. J. (2006). Self-concept threat and multiple categorization within groups. In CrispR. J.HewstoneM. (Eds.), Multiple social categorization Processes, models, and applications (pp. 112-135). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
26.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E.III. (2012a). Intergroup leadership in organizations: Leading across group and intergroup boundaries. Academy of Management Review, 37, 232-255. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0221
27.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.RastD. E.III. (2012b). The social identity theory of leadership: A decade of research and conceptual development. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 258-304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134
28.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143-156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03
29.
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000b). Intergroup similarity and subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948-958. doi:10.1177/01461672002610005
30.
JettenJ.SpearsR.MansteadA. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: Combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 635-657.
31.
JudgeT. A.BonoJ. E.IliesR.GerhardtM. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
32.
LeonardelliG.PickettC.BrewerM. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63-113). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
33.
NiedenthalP. M.BeikeD. R. (1997). Interrelated and isolated self-concepts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 106-128. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0102_1
34.
PittinskyT. L. (Ed.). (2009). Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishing.
RastD. E.IIIGaffneyA. M.HoggM. A.CrispR. J. (2012). Leadership under uncertainty: When leaders who are non-prototypical group members can gain support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 646-653. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.013
37.
RastD. E.IIIHoggM. A.GiessnerS. R. (2013). Leadership under uncertainty: The appeal of strong leaders and clear identities. Self and Identity, 12, 635-649. doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.718864
38.
RastD. E.IIIHoggM. A.GiessnerS. R. (2016). Who trusts charismatic leaders who champion change? The role of group identification, membership centrality and self-uncertainty. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20, 259-275. doi:10.1037/gdn0000053
39.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
40.
RoccasS.BrewerM. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 88-106. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
41.
RosetteA. S.LivingstonR. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1162-1167. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.002
42.
SchmidK.HewstoneM.TauschN.CairnsE.HughesJ. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of social identity complexity: Intergroup contact, distinctiveness threat, and outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1085-1098. doi:10.1177/0146167209337037
43.
ShiY.DangJ.ZhengW.LiuL. (2017). Dual identity and prejudice: The moderating role of group boundary permeability. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 195. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00195
44.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123-1128. doi:10.1177/1745691617708630
45.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
46.
ThomasG.MartinR.RiggioR. E. (2013). Leading groups: Leadership as a group process. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 3-16. doi:10.1177/1368430212462497
47.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
48.
van KnippenbergD. (2011). Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 1078-1091. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004
49.
van KnippenbergD.HoggM. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership in organizations. In KramerR. M.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 243-295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
50.
van KnippenbergD.SitkinS. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?The Academy of Management Annals, 7, 1-60.
51.
van KnippenbergD.van KnippenbergB.De CremerD.HoggM. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825-856. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.002
52.
van QuaquebekeN.van KnippenbergD.BrodbeckF. C. (2011). More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates’ self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 367-382. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.011
53.
WrightS. C.AronA.McLaughlin-VolpeT.RoppS. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
54.
WrightS. C.AronA.TroppL. R. (2002). Including others (and groups) in the self: Self-expansion and intergroup relations. In ForgasJ. P.WilliamsK. D. (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal and intergroup perspectives (pp. 343-363). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
55.
YzerbytV.DemoulinS. (2010). Intergroup relations. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1024-1083). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
