Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In the competitive world of academia, maintaining a productive and healthy life as a researcher is a significant challenge. This paper argues that identity leadership that focuses on fostering shared social identity (a sense of “we” and “us”) contributes meaningfully to researchers’ well-being and productivity. In a field study of 481 early and mid-career researchers (PhD researchers and postdocs) in Germany, academic supervisors’ identity leadership significantly contributed to better team performance (number of publications, reviews, successful funding proposals, presentations), as well as individuals’ OCB, innovation, and well-being (job satisfaction, reduced burnout). As hypothesized, supervisors played a central role, but identity leadership from senior administrators (head of unit, dean, university president) also contributed to these outcomes. Mediation analyses revealed that supervisors’ identity leadership exerted indirect effects through team identification, and to a lesser extent through trust in the leader. These findings show that academic leaders who cultivate shared identity can not only protect researchers’ well-being but also promote their productivity and innovation.

Keywords

Identity leadership leadership academia well-being performance

Since the 1960s, universities have undergone significant transformation, whereby initial student-led democratic reforms were taken over by neoliberal pressures in the 1980s emphasizing privatization and market incentives amid declining public funding (Lorenz, 2012). Increasing neoliberalism in academia has led to an increasing focus on commercialization and performance metrics, and intensified competitive cultures (Fleming, 2020). The associated introduction of audit systems and accountability measures has fundamentally changed how academic work is organized, serving as means to redefine professional identities (Shore and Wright, 2000). As a result, researchers today face significant challenges including job and financial insecurity, a highly competitive job market, and difficulty in maintaining work-life balance (Afonja et al., 2021). While job satisfaction is an important indicator of subjective career success, research productivity and excellence are key objective criteria of success in academia (Sutherland, 2017). In this regard, publications are critical factors of successful scientific careers because “papers are the currency of research” (Afonja et al., 2021: 13). This challenging environment has significant bearing on early-and-mid-career researchers (EMCRs) comprising PhD and postdoctoral researchers, where insufficient job control, insufficient supervisor support, and high job demands make them vulnerable to mental ill-health such as burnout and depression (Levecque et al., 2017). In the words of a postdoc scientist: “Anyone who pursues a research career has to be [prepared to] work in a high-pressure environment that consumes your life” (Afonja et al., 2021: 7). There are multiple reasons why researchers choose career paths outside academia, including toxic managerial cultures and academic leadership that fails to adequately support their needs and development (Watermeyer et al., 2025).

We argue that leadership and social identity are central to tackle challenges that threaten both researcher productivity and mental health for two reasons. First, leadership by academic supervisors and leaders of research teams more generally has been recognized by most researchers as key to performance and success (Rehbock et al., 2021). When EMCRs feel supported by and are satisfied with the supervision they receive, they are more likely to be satisfied with their own academic skill development (Le et al., 2021). Second, the sense of belonging in a research team is a protective factor against burnout, highlighting the importance of group life and associated social identity for mental health (Kusurkar et al., 2021).

In this paper, we propose (social) identity leadership that entails leaders’ creation and promotion of a sense of “us” among those they lead, as an important approach to lead research teams in a way that supports both researcher productivity and well-being. This study makes three key contributions. First, it extends leadership research in higher education by introducing identity leadership, grounded in the social identity approach (SIA; Haslam, 2004; Hornsey, 2008), as a theoretical framework that has been largely absent from the field (cf. Black, 2015). Over the past decade, research on leadership styles in higher education has grown significantly and has focused mainly on transformational, ethical, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership (Maheshwari and Kha, 2023), while identity leadership remains underexplored despite encapsulating effective leadership behaviors such as fostering a collegial atmosphere, advancing the group's cause, acting as a role model (Bryman, 2007), or protecting staff (Bryman and Lilley, 2009). Evidence of identity leadership's benefits in higher education has so far been limited to administrative staff, where it has been linked to enhanced knowledge sharing (Lyu and Sun, 2025), highlighting the need to investigate its relevance for academic leaders. Second, the study demonstrates identity leadership's utility in addressing the distinctive challenges of academia. Building on existing findings in- and outside academia, it examines team identification and trust in the leader as mediators of leadership effectiveness and incorporates well-being variables that have rarely been considered in higher education leadership research (cf. Maheshwari and Kha, 2023). The focus on quasi-objective performance measures offers a more robust evaluation of outcomes than the prevalent use of subjective measures in prior research (e.g., Hou et al., 2021). Finally, the article introduces a novel comparative analysis of leadership across multiple hierarchical levels, highlighting the relevance of different leadership levels (head of unit¹, dean, and university president) in influencing individual and team outcomes, while emphasizing the critical role of immediate academic supervisors in shaping the performance and well-being of EMCRs.

The social identity approach

Researcher identity can be understood in various ways—individually or socially constructed, stable or dynamic, singular or multiple (Castelló et al., 2021). Within academia, two key frameworks for understanding identity are the social identity approach and role identity theory. Both examine how social structures shape self-concept and influence affect, behavior, and cognition, sharing concepts such as identity salience and multiple coexisting identities (Sluss et al., 2011), but differ in origin, structure, and motivational focus. Although role identity theory is widely applied in higher education research (e.g., Song and Yang, 2023; Zou et al., 2019), this study adopts the social identity approach, explained in detail below, which conceptualizes the identity of researchers as socially shaped, dynamic, and composed of multiple, context-dependent facets (Castelló et al., 2021).

The social identity approach posits a distinction between personal and social identity (e.g., Haslam, 2004). The concept of personal identity (a sense of “I” or “me”) encompasses the ways in which individuals perceive themselves in unique, idiosyncratic ways (e.g., seeing oneself as particularly extraverted or as having a good sense of humor). In contrast, shared social identity (a sense of “we” and “us”) refers to the definition of oneself in terms of attributes that one shared with other members of a group such as “us academics” or “us, members of research team X” (Haslam et al., 2019).

The theory further asserts that social identities shape people's attitudes and behaviors, such that people are motivated to align their behavior with the norms and goals of groups that they identify with (Haslam, 2004). A shared social identity enables psychological resources, including connection, meaning, and social support (Haslam et al., 2019). Moreover, research indicates that identification with a group is associated with a range of important work outcomes such as work satisfaction (Haslam et al., 2009) and innovative behavior (Zhang and Wang, 2021). Because group identification has been identified as an important contributor to physical and mental health (Lee et al., 2021; Steffens et al., 2017), groups have been regarded as a “social cure” to health challenges (Haslam et al., 2018).

Haslam (2017) emphasizes that social identity is highly relevant in educational contexts, shaping processes and outcomes such as creativity and knowledge co-production. As Haslam (2017) highlights, shared social identity between instructor and learner underpins leadership and mutual influence, enabling students to see instructors as a member of their group and as supporting shared goals. Building on this, Cárdenas et al. (2024) show that school leaders who actively foster shared social identity create more positive, supportive work environments that enhance well-being and engagement among staff. Despite some growth in identity research within higher education over the past two decades (Castelló et al., 2021), there remains significant potential for applying social identity theory to higher education (Haslam, 2017). Identity plays a critical role contributing to student well-being and academic achievement (Andreadis and Marshall, 2025; Bliuc et al., 2011) and in shaping experiences of academic retirement, where strong work-related identities are common (Miron et al., 2022). In higher education, various resources can shape professional identities of EMCRs, including the essential support provided by supervisors, their role as aspirational prototypes, and the perceived compatibility between supervisors’ identities and the EMCRs’ envisioned future selves (Bentley et al., 2019).

Identity leadership

The topic of effective leadership is becoming of increasing interest to both academic researchers and organizational leaders (Montano et al., 2017). Importantly, leadership is not about achieving power over others (Haslam et al., 2022), but rather about achieving power through others so that those other people are motivated to contribute to group goals (Haslam et al., 2020). This shared social identity has been argued to be key to social influence, which is crucial to effective leadership (Haslam et al., 2020). The social identity approach to leadership builds on these ideas by conceptualizing leadership not as a set of individual traits but as a process of social identity management and mobilization (Haslam et al., 2020), whereby individuals influence group members’ behavior by creating and shaping shared social identity (Reicher et al., 2018). More specifically, identity leadership (IL) can be seen as a process of cultivating a sense of “we” and “us” that involves representing, advancing, creating, and embedding “a shared sense of social identity for group members” (Steffens et al., 2014: 1002). IL is not limited to one role and can occur at multiple levels, including through shared leadership practices (Fransen et al., 2020a).

IL was initially developed in social and organizational contexts, but has since been applied to a range of additional contexts, including the field of sports (Stevens et al., 2021), politics and crisis management (Frenzel et al., 2022), military operations (White, 2020), societal change (Khumalo et al., 2022), psychotherapy (Lee et al., 2021), and education (Simonsen and Rundmo, 2020). IL has relevance to different settings in part because it is context-sensitive, as leaders are tasked with leading a specific group, such as a country, sports team, or work team (Haslam et al., 2020). In this article, we posit that IL also plays an important role in contributing to academic well-being and achievement. This assertion is predicated on the premise that researchers ultimately also function within the context of teams and that collaboration constitutes a central component of research endeavors. Although there are many similarities, the role of academic supervisors are significantly different to that of business leaders (Vilkinas, 2002) and in this paper we argue they play a key role in reducing the “leadership deficit” in higher education (cf. Morris, 2012).

Identity leadership, performance, and well-being

IL has been argued to be crucial for the formation of effective teams (Fransen et al., 2020b) and has been linked to diverse forms of performance (Hou et al., 2021; van Dick and Kerschreiter, 2016). For example, leaders’ crafting of shared identity through use of “we” pronouns in CEO letters was positively related to sales per employee and return on assets (Fladerer et al., 2021). Furthermore, identity leadership has been positively linked to well-being outcomes such as job satisfaction, work engagement, and (reduced) burnout (Steffens et al., 2018; van Dick et al., 2018), as well as enabling greater resilience in facing and dealing with crises (Muldoon et al., 2019).

Researchers have proposed multiple mechanisms that underpin the effects of identity leadership on well-being and performance outcomes. For example, IL has been shown to enhance team identification and trust in the leader (van Dick et al., 2018), both of which are important within higher education (Bryman and Lilley, 2009). Both have empirically been shown to function as mediators between IL and several important outcomes in organizational (Krug et al., 2021) and in sport settings (Figgins et al., 2025) which suggests the possibility of transferability across contexts. Based on this reasoning, trust in the leader and team identification are expected to ameliorate the exhaustive and performance-oriented nature of EMRCs jobs by positively influencing well-being as well as academic (in role and extra role) performance. Publications, presentations, successful funding, and reviewing articles can be seen as indicators of in-role performance, which in turn has been shown to be positively related to organizational identification (Riketta, 2005; van Dick et al., 2006).

Identity leadership across university hierarchy levels

Whilst choosing the right leadership approach is pivotal to outcomes of all kinds, the hierarchical leadership level also plays a role, influencing how leadership in academia is understood (Grajfoner et al., 2024). This underscores the importance of adopting a more nuanced perspective on the impact of varying leadership levels on their employees.

In academia, the leader of a research team or lab serves as the formal leader in the group and immediate supervisor of EMCRs. While in some research contexts and countries, the team structure is relatively dynamic, in Germany, where the present study was conducted, group boundaries are typically clearly defined and relatively stable. One reason for this is that Assistant and Associate Professorship positions are less prevalent. Instead, academic research teams are typically constituted as fixed groups around a full professor. This creates a relationship of significant dependency between EMCRs and their leader. Even when individual team members depart and new ones join, the professor's role as team leader and academic supervisor remains relatively stable. This structure allows for the formation of a self-contained group within the university.

Nevertheless, beyond this group, organizations typically have various hierarchy levels and are organized in terms of multiple groups offering additional potential identification foci (van Knippenberg, 2000), such as organizational, departmental, and sub-group identification (Sidorenkov et al., 2022). Here, leaders play a pivotal role in motivating employees to engage in behaviors that support goals of a particular group (Ullrich et al., 2007).

We build on the argument that a leader's behavior can influence various outcomes and that multiple leaders can influence the same criterion. In universities, the importance of leadership at different levels is noticeable given the prevalence of distributed leadership practices that operate through top-down delegation rather than collaborative emergence (Bolden et al., 2009). It can be assumed that leaders at higher levels can influence followers by appealing to the social identity of their specific reference group. Therefore, it is argued that identity leadership of leaders at multiple levels of the university hierarchy (supervisor, head of unit, dean, university president) all strengthen members’ sense of connection to their respective group and through this contribute to their well-being and behavioral outcomes. This means that even at the highest level, the university president can create a sense of “us, members of this university” and through this positively influence individuals and teams. However, lower-level groups such as working groups tend to offer an especially important identification focus (Riketta and van Dick, 2005) because they balance the need for inclusiveness and distinctiveness and so smaller groups can be expected to be more salient and have a more pronounced impact on outcomes. Consequently, it can be assumed that academic supervisors are of particular significance. An additional reason for the particular importance of the immediate supervisor for the achievement of lower-level group outcomes is explained by the identity-matching principle (IMP; Ullrich et al., 2007), which states that when identification is addressed at a particular level, outcomes at the same level of categorization are likely to be stronger. This suggests that contributions to team-level productivity should be most sensitive to the leadership of the team leader (rather than, for example, the head of unit).

The current research

The present study sought to test the proposed relations between identity leadership and EMCRs’ productivity and well-being. It also aimed to examine the mechanisms of team identification and trust in the leader as mediators of these links. In the study, we employ a quasi-objective performance measure to minimize bias and enhance the robustness of the findings. Another existing literature gap that this paper addresses is the possibility of multiple identification foci by examining the leadership of not only the direct leader (the academic supervisor) but also of hierarchically more distant leaders, including the head of unit, the dean, and the university president.

In light of the aforementioned findings and the subsequent rationale, we propose and test the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis I: Identity leadership of leaders at different levels of the hierarchy is positively associated with reported team performance, indicated by (a) number of publications, (b) reviews, (c) third-party funds, and (d) number of presentations at the work group level.

Hypothesis II: Identity leadership of leaders at different levels of the hierarchy is positively associated with (a) OCB, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) innovation, and negatively with (d) burnout.

Hypothesis III: Identity leadership of the academic supervisor is more strongly associated with outcomes (performance, OCB, innovation, satisfaction, burnout) than identity leadership of leaders at higher levels of the hierarchy (the head of unit, dean, or university president).

Hypothesis IV: The link between identity leadership and outcomes is mediated by (a) trust in the leader and (b) team identification.

Methods

Research design

To test our hypotheses, we ran a preregistered² cross-sectional online study, inviting doctoral researchers and postdocs who worked at a university or comparable institution who had a direct supervisor. Data collection took place between 06/29/2022 and 10/09/2022. This survey was conducted in compliance with the ethical regulations of the first author's institution, which did not require prior ethical approval. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the study. Participation was not incentivized in any way. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling: Contacts from German universities and various doctoral and postdoctoral associations were invited via email and personally. Questionnaires were available in German and English.

Sample

In total, 490 participants working in academia completed the questionnaire. Three participants were removed because of straightlining and 6 participants because they took less than half of the median completion time (Kaluza et al., 2021). This resulted in a total of 481 participants. Answering each item was mandatory, resulting in no missing data. The dataset used in this study can be accessed via https://osf.io/hm4g7/?view_only = f09fb4ad059b415fadf00ce4cdd7c8ae. Of the participants, 66.32% were female, 32.85% male, and 0.83% indicated “other.” Most (80.25%) were aged 25–35, with smaller groups in other age ranges. PhD researchers made up 83.78% of the sample. Disciplines included natural sciences (61.12%), social sciences (11.43%), humanities (9.56%), economics (8.94%), and other, not further specified disciplines (8.94%).

Procedure

The email sent to the respective individuals or via group distribution list contained the link to the questionnaire. After clicking on the link, participants received information about the study including voluntary participation, anonymized use of data, and data protection. After providing their informed consent, participants were asked whether they worked at a university or similar institution and whether they had a direct supervisor. If this resulted in a negative answer, participation was automatically terminated. Accordingly, only individuals who also met the inclusion criteria were able to participate. Next, participants completed the questionnaire including questions about demographics.

Measures

Identity leadership

To assess identity leadership of leaders at the four hierarchical levels (supervisor, head of unit, dean, and university president), we used the Visual Identity Leadership Scale (VILS; Steffens et al., 2024), which is a pictorial single-item scale, and which is particularly useful for studies investigating multiple leaders. It uses seven Venn diagrams that display different levels of convergence between the leader and the values and goals of a particular group that participants choose from (ranging from no convergence at all to complete convergence). In this study, the VILS was adapted for use at four leadership levels, with the aim of querying the identity leadership of different leaders and the respective group that each leader was required to lead.

Team identification

Team identification was assessed following Doosje et al. (1995) using a 4-item and 7-point Likert scale (1 = “completely disagree”; 7 = “completely agree”; α = .93). Items included, for example, “I identify with my team.”

Trust in the leader

Trust in the leader was measured using the 3-item Trust in the Leader Scale (Podsakoff et al., 1990). Participants responded on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “Does not apply” to 7 = “Applies completely” (α = .94). One of the items was “I have complete faith in the integrity of my leader.”

Scientific performance

Scientific performance was measured quasi-objectively by quantitatively assessing the number of scientific contributions at work group level in the last twelve months, in the form of number of peer-reviewed publications, number of articles reviewed, number of successful third-party funding applications, and number of presentations at congresses and symposia. A 7-point scale was used for each of the 4 types of scientific contributions (i.e., publications, reviews, funding proposals, and presentations) which ranged from 0 scientific contributions to 10 or more (with the anchors 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, 9–10, and >10). Internal consistency was α = .82.

Organizational citizenship behavior

OCB was assessed with five items based on van Dick et al. (2006) using a 7-point Likert scale reaching from 1 = “completely disagree” to 7 = “completely agree” with an example item being “I help colleagues who have heavy workloads.” Internal consistency in this study was α = .73.

Innovation

Innovation was measured using a 7-point Likert Scale with 1 = “never” and 7 = “always” with the nine items developed by Janssen (2000). This questionnaire is based on the Innovation Workspace Scale by Scott and Bruce (1994) and three items each measure the innovation stages idea generation, idea promotion, and idea realization (cf. Kanter, 1996). The reliability in the present study was α = .89. An example item is “How often do you generate original solutions for problems?”

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was measured with two items from the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975), using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = “does not apply” to 7 = “applies completely” (α = .82; r_{Spearman−Brown} = .82). A sample item is “I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do in this job.”

Burnout

Burnout was measured with a 9-item scale using a 7-point Likert scale with 1 = “never” and 7 = “every day” (α = .91) using the emotional exhaustion subscale of the scale of van Dick et al. (2018) based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach and Jackson, 1981). “I feel emotionally drained from my work” was one of the items.

Results

Data analysis

All statistical calculations and visualizations were performed using version 4.4.2 of the statistical software R (R Core Team, 2024), with the RStudio extension (Version 2024.12.0 Build 467, Posit Team, 2024) and were carried out at the individual level. To test the first three mentioned hypotheses, correlational analyses were used. In addition, Fisher's z-test was used for the third hypothesis. For the fourth hypothesis, an integrated analysis was carried out using structural equation modeling (SEM) which was run with the lavaan package (Rosseel, 2012). The model (see Figure 1) includes the paths of academic supervisors’ IL via team identification and trust in the leader on the latent variables performance (number of publications, reviewed papers, funding grants, and presentations), OCB, innovation, job satisfaction, and burnout. Item parceling was done for the three innovation dimensions: idea generation, idea promotion, idea realization. To more effectively capture the complexity of the data while preserving the theoretical coherence of the model, selected error correlations for individual variables were permitted based on modification indices. Some error correlations were allowed within groups of related latent mediators and within related latent outcomes, in line with theoretical and empirical evidence suggesting the interdependence of these constructs.

Figure 1.
Proposed SEM illustrating the mediation pathways of identity leadership on well-being and performance outcomes.

Performance and well-being outcomes at different leadership levels

As expected, supervisor IL³ was significantly and positively associated with all academic performance outcomes. The correlations ranged from r = .12 (in the case of reviews and funding) to r = .21 (regarding presentations). Regarding other leadership levels nearly all correlations were as expected positive but some of them were not statistically significant — identity leadership of the head of unit and dean was associated with 3 of the 4 performance indicators, while the identity leadership of the university president was associated with 2 of the 4 performance indicators (see Table 1). Because we measured the performance at the team level, we ran additional partial correlation analyses controlling for group size. The results varied only slightly with correlational differences between .00 and .03 which is why the raw correlations are reported here.

Table 1.
Correlations of identity leadership at different university hierarchy levels with mediators and outcome variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Supervisor IL 4.20 1.49

2. Head of Unit IL 3.26 1.60 .41

[.33, .48]

3. Dean IL 2.68 1.53 .34 .55

[.25, .41] [.49, .61]

4. University President IL 2.26 1.45 .22 .41 .72

[.13, .30] [.33, .48] [.67, .76]

5. Team identification 5.07 1.60 .40 .20 .15 .07

[.32, .47] [.11, .28] [.06, .24] [−.02, .16]

6. Trust in the leader 4.88 2.05 .62 .19 .14 .04 .44

[.56, .67] [.10, .27] [.05, .23] [−.05, .12] [.36, .51]

7. Publications 3.22 1.78 .18 .12* .12 .08 .15 .16

[.09, .26] [.03, .20] [.03, .21] [−.01, .17] [.06, .24] [.08, .25]

8. Reviews 2.39 1.67 .12 .12 .16 .12** .09* .12 .62

[.03, .21] [.03, .21] [.07, .25] [.03, .21] [.00, .18] [.03, .20] [.56, .67]

9. Third-party funding 2.02 1.05 .12** .07 .10* .11* .15 .14 .53 .54

[.03, .21] [−.01, .16] [.01, .19] [.02, .19] [.06, .23] [.05, .22] [.46, .59] [.47, .60]

10. Presentations 3.57 1.82 .21** .10* .07 .01 .17 .21 .65 .54 .46

[.12, .29] [.01, .19] [−.01, .16] [−.07, .10] [.08, .25] [.13, .30] [.59, .70] [.47, .60] [.39, .53]

11. OCB 5.74 0.89 .19 .04 .12 .06 .24 .22 .06 .01 .02 .13

[.10, .27] [−.04, .13] [.03, .21] [−.03, .15] [.16, .33] [.13, .30] [−.03, .15] [−.08, .10] [−.07, .11] [.04, .21]

12. Job satisfaction 4.93 1.57 .46** .12* .11* .05 .56 .53 .11* .01 .10* .13 .31

[.39, .53] [.03, .20] [.02, .19] [−.04, .14] [.50, .62] [.47, .59] [.02, .20] [−.08, .10] [.01, .18] [.04, .21] [.23, .39]

13. Innovation 4.62 1.07 .15 .08 .12 .06 .28** .09 .05 .02 .10* .03 .26 .29

[.07, .24] [−.01, .17] [.03, .21] [−.03, .15] [.19, .36] [−.00, .17] [−.04, .14] [−.07, .11] [.01, .19] [−.06, .12] [.17, .34] [.20, .37]

14. Burnout 3.43 1.35 −.41** −.09 −.10* .02 −.43 −.46 −.08 .01 −.03 −.05 −.18 −.63 −.17**

[−.48, −.33] [−.18, .00] [−.19, −.01] [−.07, .11] [−.50, −.35] [−.53, −.38] [−.16, .01] [−.08, .09] [−.12, .06] [−.14, .04] [−.26, −.09] [−.69, −.58] [−.26, −.09]

Note. IL: identity leadership. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95% confidence interval for each correlation. * P < .05. ** P < .01.

Analogous to the performance outcomes, academic supervisors’ IL was significantly associated with all individual behavioral (OCB and innovation) and well-being outcomes (job satisfaction and burnout) in the proposed directions. The size of the correlations spanned from r = .15 in case of innovation to r = .46 regarding job satisfaction. While dean's IL was significantly associated with all outcomes, head of unit's IL was only significantly correlated with job satisfaction, while university president's IL was not significantly associated with outcomes even though the relationship with all outcomes (other than burnout) were in the expected direction (see Table 1 which additionally displays correlations with team identification and trust in the leader). All in all, these results provide partial support for Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Descriptively, all outcomes, except for the number of reviews, correlated more strongly with IL of the academic supervisor than with the head of unit, the dean, or the university president (see Table 1). Providing partial support for Hypothesis 3, academic supervisor–outcome correlations were significantly stronger in 12 of the 24 comparisons (see Supplementary Materials for full results). Significant differences were found for presentations, job satisfaction, and burnout, where in all cases the academic supervisor's IL showed stronger associations than that of the head of unit, dean, or university president. No significant differences were observed for reviews, third-party funding, or innovation. For publications, a significant difference emerged only between the academic supervisor and the university president (z = 1.77, P = .04), and for OCB, significant differences were found between the academic supervisor and both the head of unit (z = 3.05, P = .001) and the university president (z = 2.30, P = .01). Controlling for gender of the participant and leader did not change the overall pattern of the results.

Mediators of the relationship between IL and performance and well-being outcomes

The model in Figure 1 showed a good fit (cf. Hu and Bentler, 1999) to the data (χ² = 810.936; df = 401; χ²/df = 2.0223; CFI = .959; TLI = .952; RMSEA = .046; SRMR = .049). In this model, number of publications, reviews, grants, and talks were subsumed in a latent variable academic performance. The indirect effects were tested using Bootstrapping. Six of 10 indirect effects were significant, two were marginally significant, two were non-significant (see Table 2). Both trust in the leader and team identification mediated the well-being outcomes of job satisfaction and burnout, with trust showing a stronger indirect effect for these outcomes. For performance, innovation, and OCB, team identification emerged as the more consistent and influential mediator, highlighting its greater overall importance. These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 4.

Table 2.
Indirect effects of supervisors’ identity leadership on various outcomes via trust in the leader and team identification.

Indirect effect Estimate SE z P 95% CI

IL → Trust → OCB 0.027 0.025 1.051 .293 −0.016; 0.082

IL → Trust → Job satisfaction 0.291 0.048 6.072 <.001 0.200; 0.392

IL → Trust → Innovation −0.052 0.027 −1.927 .054^✝ −0.103; 0.003

IL → Trust → Burnout −0.197 0.045 −4.401 <.001 −0.287; −0.114

IL → Trust → Performance 0.025 0.046 0.544 .587 −0.069; 0.118

IL → Team ID → OCB 0.052 0.016 3.334 .001 0.022; 0.083

IL → Team ID → Job satisfaction 0.184 0.030 6.121 <.001 0.127; 0.240

IL →Team ID → Innovation 0.076 0.018 4.330 <.001 0.042; 0.111

IL → Team ID → Burnout −0.100 0.027 −3.766 <.001 −0.157; −.0.053

IL → Team ID → Performance 0.044 0.024 1.823 .068^✝ −0.003; 0.093

Note. SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; IL: identity leadership; Trust: trust in the leader; Team ID: team identification. ^✝ P < .10. * P < .05. ** P < .01.

Discussion

In this research, we explored the link between identity leadership of various academic leaders and early and mid-career researchers’ performance and well-being. Results show that identity leadership of not only the academic supervisor but also of leaders at higher levels of the organizational hierarchy had a meaningful impact on researchers and their teams. As hypothesized, in nearly all cases, the academic supervisor played at least descriptively the most important role in shaping (for better or worse) researchers’ well-being and performance outcomes.

We also explored the mediating role of team identification and trust in these relationships. Results showed that particularly team identification and to a lesser extent trust in the leader mediated the associations between IL of the academic supervisor and behavioral and well-being outcomes. While trust mediated the links to greater job satisfaction and marginally to innovation, as well as lower burnout (but not OCB or performance), team identification mediated the links with all outcomes including OCB (and marginally with performance).

Theoretical implications

Group-focused leadership approaches such as IL remain underrepresented in the higher education literature⁴, despite strong evidence for the importance of social identity processes in effective leadership. This study demonstrates that identity leadership is applicable to academia and enriches leadership theory by incorporating behaviors missing from dominant frameworks (cf. Black, 2015), many of which insufficiently address the team-based nature of academic work. By evidencing IL's relevance for fostering well-being and productivity in academia, the study fills a critical conceptual and practical gap in higher education leadership research. The findings also extend IL theory by confirming its effectiveness in academia. In this academic setting, IL was associated with significant performance and well-being outcomes at individual and team level, further underscoring its value, and enriching the limited evidence on well-being in higher education leadership research. Incorporating quasi-objective performance data is a strength which sets this study apart from the majority of studies on IL and performance that employ subjective, overall performance evaluations (e.g., Hou et al., 2021). While trust in the leader has been confirmed as a relevant variable in higher education and IL research in this study, team identification seems to be a particularly important mechanisms underpinning the effects of identity leadership. The notion that team identification serves as a more consistent mediator than trust in the leader is partly attributable to the nature of outcomes examined here: OCB and performance rely heavily on mutual emotional and instrumental support often performed by fellow team members, highlighting the central role of team processes. In contrast, trust in the leader appeared to play a somewhat stronger role in the well-being outcomes, possibly due to their greater sensitivity to interpersonal relationship quality, although team identification also contributed to shaping well-being.

It is important to note that while these findings emphasize that IL is an effective form of leadership, IL is not necessarily moral (for a discussion see Kratzer and van Dick, 2025), as people align their behavior with shared group norms and goals (Haslam, 2004), which are not inherently good or bad. Group dynamics are shaped by social identity content—shared beliefs, assumptions, and values which define intra- and inter-group relations (Haslam, 2017). Key questions shaping group outcomes include: “What does it mean to be a member of the group?” and “What type of group do we want to become?” As leadership and identity are socially and culturally embedded, it is important to note that in many countries, academic IL operates within neoliberal structures and should not obscure poor working conditions. Consistent with this, neoliberalism has been shown to reduce well-being by fostering social disconnection, competitive orientations, and loneliness (Becker et al., 2021). While academic supervisors’ IL may help protect members’ well-being within neoliberal, individualistic academic systems, the social identity perspective emphasizes the importance of building shared identity and collective structures, aligned with traditional academic values such as collaboration, collegial governance, and intellectual community (Haslam, 2004). Researchers have argued that neoliberalism has reshaped academic endeavor and identity by putting the responsibility on individuals, prioritizing research over teaching, encouraging questionable practices, and harming well-being through pressures linked to promotion and job security (Mula et al., 2022; Shore and Wright, 2000). Despite this, the growing misalignment between institutional demands and what some academics genuinely value highlights the need to shift academic endeavor away from efficiency toward values such as collegiality, curiosity, and intrinsically motivated research (Fleming, 2020). In this regard, social identities are also a tool of social power, providing a basis for collective resistance that can challenge and transform dominant institutional dynamics (Haslam and Reicher, 2012; Reicher, 2004). IL in particular may be a mechanism through which to counter neoliberal pressures by reshaping institutional narratives, reinforcing shared values, and reorienting leadership toward social support, cohesion, and collective purpose over compliance and efficiency. This aligns with movements like slow scholarship, which challenge fast-paced, metric-driven academia through collective care, slow strategies, and mutual support (Mountz et al., 2015). Through such social identity work, leaders can mobilize collective action, support EMCRs, and challenge dominant narratives of competition and productivity—though this remains a significant challenge (cf. Burrows, 2012; Shore and Wright, 2000).

The present research also expands upon research on multiple identities. The majority of research on organizational identification focused on the organization as a unified entity so far, rather than as a collection of multiple entities (Bartels et al., 2007). This study demonstrates the novel approach of comparing multiple leaders on different hierarchical levels regarding IL and is, to our knowledge, the first study to do so. In the present case, we found that participants’ immediate supervisor at the team level was the most impactful leader in shaping their team-level performance. While these results are consistent with the assumptions of the identity-matching principle and the notion of the direct leader's significance, they also underscore the potential impact of leaders at other levels in academia.

Practical implications

The present study demonstrates that academic leaders exert a substantial influence on ECMRs to engender positive outcomes at both the individual and team level by developing shared identity in the team. However, the impact of academic supervisors on team functioning and researchers’ well-being is not exclusive to supervisors. Individuals in other leadership roles must also recognize their influence and assume responsibility in conjunction with other leadership levels and associated identities. Research has shown that employees’ group identification is interconnected with identification at broader organizational levels (Bartels et al., 2007). Therefore, leaders must shape an identity that aligns with other work-related identities and, when needed, compensate for supervisors’ lack of engagement in IL practices. For example, dual identifications can be promoted, and intergroup relation identities can be shaped (Fladerer et al., 2020). This is important because identification with multiple foci (e.g., scholarly and entrepreneurial) can cause role conflict (Zou et al., 2019), making identity centrality (Wang et al., 2022) and compatibility of group identities crucial for academic behavior (cf. identity complexity, Roccas and Brewer, 2002). This knowledge should be integrated not only into future research endeavors but also into practices and establish it as a training objective. Like IL itself, interventions need to be group- and context-specific, aiming to (re)define group norms. Examples include reflective practices to strengthen identity leadership in coaching (Hoult et al., 2024) and the 5R program, a five-phase IL development program comprising modules focusing on Readying (Why does “we” matter?), Reflecting (Who are we?), Representing (What do we want to be?), Realizing (How do we become what we want to be?), and Reinforcing (Are we becoming what we want to be?) (Haslam et al., 2017; Haslam et al., 2023). 5R is adaptable across settings, including psychotherapy (Haslam, 2024), with a variation tailored to develop shared forms of identity leadership (5RS; Fransen et al., 2020a).

A shared sense of “us” can be created rhetorically, performatively, and materially (for a discussion of the first two, see Kratzer and van Dick, 2025), though material expressions of identity can be challenging in academia. Haslam (2017) emphasizes that identity in education is shaped more by everyday societal practices than by formal policies. These practices reflect the shared understandings and ongoing processes through which groups define themselves and negotiate their identity. Building on this, initiatives such as EMCR representation in committees, mentoring programs, and cross-level identity co-creation workshops play a vital role in fostering group identity from within. At the same time, supportive policies, such as embedding early-career concerns in governance documents or giving EMCRs influence over budgets, can provide formal structures that help enable and sustain these practices.

While these results also have potential implications for the selection of academic leaders, it should not be restricted to identity-related factors. A multitude of factors, including scientific background, skills and abilities, and leadership experience, must also be considered (Alholiby, 2024).

Limitations and future research

Despite its indisputable value, this study has some important limitations. While Germany's academic system has unique features, such as the absence of assistant or associate professors, professorships as chairs, and specific regulations like the German law to limit the maximum contract duration for non-permanent staff that may influence our findings, its similarities with other countries prevail. Given the global competitiveness and neoliberal influences in academia (Mula et al., 2022), we believe our findings on IL, well-being, performance, and the relevance of multiple leadership levels are largely transferable internationally. However, as the study is limited to a single national context, future cross-cultural research is needed to assess the generalizability of these results.

Although performance indicators like peer-reviewed publications are objective outputs, they were self-reported, making them quasi-objective. Using objective performance data could offer further insights and would help overcome common method bias. Additionally, using data from the same individuals for independent and dependent variables introduces same-source bias, potentially strengthening the relationships. Future studies could mitigate these issues by obtaining variables from different sources, such as asking leaders about their identity-related leadership behavior.

People typically have several work-related identities, including those linked to informal subgroups that potentially provide particularly intensive social support. While this study focused on formal identification foci, subgroup identification (Sidorenkov et al., 2022) may also play a key role in IL and its outcomes. Furthermore, the scientific success of PhD researchers is contingent upon more than merely formal leadership or mentorship positions, such as that of the supervisor. In future studies, identity leadership of informal leaders and shared identity leadership needs to be examined in academic contexts.

Conclusion

This study highlights the pivotal role of academic identity leaders in enhancing researchers’ well-being and productivity. The extent to which supervisors foster and emphasize a sense of shared social identity within their research teams is significantly associated with EMCRs’ well-being and team performance, including publications and funding success. Identity leadership at higher institutional levels, including head of units, deans and university presidents, also contributes positively to these outcomes, albeit less consistently and less strongly than the identity leadership of supervisors. Furthermore, results show that team identification seems to be a key mechanism through which identity leadership exerts its effects, while trust in the leader plays a secondary role. These findings underscore the need for institutions to develop leaders across multiple levels who inspire a sense of “we” among researchers, creating healthy and high-performing teams in the sometimes exhausting and overwhelming context of academia. In a manner consistent with the prevailing wisdom in the domain of athletics, the following maxim, attributed to Michael Jordan, finds applicability in academia: “Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships.”

Supplemental Material

sj-jpg-1-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 - Supplemental material for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance

Supplemental material, sj-jpg-1-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance by Benedikt E Kratzer, Sebastian Bänfer, Niklas K Steffens and Rolf van Dick in Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 - Supplemental material for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance by Benedikt E Kratzer, Sebastian Bänfer, Niklas K Steffens and Rolf van Dick in Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Supplemental Material

sj-sav-4-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 - Supplemental material for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance

Supplemental material, sj-sav-4-ema-10.1177_17411432251396677 for How identity leadership at various university hierarchy levels shapes researchers’ well-being and performance by Benedikt E Kratzer, Sebastian Bänfer, Niklas K Steffens and Rolf van Dick in Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Supervisor IL	4.20	1.49
2. Head of Unit IL	3.26	1.60	.41**
			[.33, .48]
3. Dean IL	2.68	1.53	.34**	.55**
			[.25, .41]	[.49, .61]
4. University President IL	2.26	1.45	.22**	.41**	.72**
			[.13, .30]	[.33, .48]	[.67, .76]
5. Team identification	5.07	1.60	.40**	.20**	.15**	.07
			[.32, .47]	[.11, .28]	[.06, .24]	[−.02, .16]
6. Trust in the leader	4.88	2.05	.62**	.19**	.14**	.04	.44**
			[.56, .67]	[.10, .27]	[.05, .23]	[−.05, .12]	[.36, .51]
7. Publications	3.22	1.78	.18**	.12*	.12**	.08	.15**	.16**
			[.09, .26]	[.03, .20]	[.03, .21]	[−.01, .17]	[.06, .24]	[.08, .25]
8. Reviews	2.39	1.67	.12**	.12**	.16**	.12**	.09*	.12**	.62**
			[.03, .21]	[.03, .21]	[.07, .25]	[.03, .21]	[.00, .18]	[.03, .20]	[.56, .67]
9. Third-party funding	2.02	1.05	.12**	.07	.10*	.11*	.15**	.14**	.53**	.54**
			[.03, .21]	[−.01, .16]	[.01, .19]	[.02, .19]	[.06, .23]	[.05, .22]	[.46, .59]	[.47, .60]
10. Presentations	3.57	1.82	.21**	.10*	.07	.01	.17**	.21**	.65**	.54**	.46**
			[.12, .29]	[.01, .19]	[−.01, .16]	[−.07, .10]	[.08, .25]	[.13, .30]	[.59, .70]	[.47, .60]	[.39, .53]
11. OCB	5.74	0.89	.19**	.04	.12**	.06	.24**	.22**	.06	.01	.02	.13**
			[.10, .27]	[−.04, .13]	[.03, .21]	[−.03, .15]	[.16, .33]	[.13, .30]	[−.03, .15]	[−.08, .10]	[−.07, .11]	[.04, .21]
12. Job satisfaction	4.93	1.57	.46**	.12*	.11*	.05	.56**	.53**	.11*	.01	.10*	.13**	.31**
			[.39, .53]	[.03, .20]	[.02, .19]	[−.04, .14]	[.50, .62]	[.47, .59]	[.02, .20]	[−.08, .10]	[.01, .18]	[.04, .21]	[.23, .39]
13. Innovation	4.62	1.07	.15**	.08	.12**	.06	.28**	.09	.05	.02	.10*	.03	.26**	.29**
			[.07, .24]	[−.01, .17]	[.03, .21]	[−.03, .15]	[.19, .36]	[−.00, .17]	[−.04, .14]	[−.07, .11]	[.01, .19]	[−.06, .12]	[.17, .34]	[.20, .37]
14. Burnout	3.43	1.35	−.41**	−.09	−.10*	.02	−.43**	−.46**	−.08	.01	−.03	−.05	−.18**	−.63**	−.17**
			[−.48, −.33]	[−.18, .00]	[−.19, −.01]	[−.07, .11]	[−.50, −.35]	[−.53, −.38]	[−.16, .01]	[−.08, .09]	[−.12, .06]	[−.14, .04]	[−.26, −.09]	[−.69, −.58]	[−.26, −.09]

Indirect effect	Estimate	SE	z	P	95% CI
IL → Trust → OCB	0.027	0.025	1.051	.293	−0.016; 0.082
IL → Trust → Job satisfaction	0.291	0.048	6.072	<.001**	0.200; 0.392
IL → Trust → Innovation	−0.052	0.027	−1.927	.054^✝	−0.103; 0.003
IL → Trust → Burnout	−0.197	0.045	−4.401	<.001**	−0.287; −0.114
IL → Trust → Performance	0.025	0.046	0.544	.587	−0.069; 0.118
IL → Team ID → OCB	0.052	0.016	3.334	.001**	0.022; 0.083
IL → Team ID → Job satisfaction	0.184	0.030	6.121	<.001**	0.127; 0.240
IL →Team ID → Innovation	0.076	0.018	4.330	<.001**	0.042; 0.111
IL → Team ID → Burnout	−0.100	0.027	−3.766	<.001**	−0.157; −.0.053
IL → Team ID → Performance	0.044	0.024	1.823	.068^✝	−0.003; 0.093

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Benedikt E Kratzer

Niklas K Steffens

Rolf van Dick

Ethical considerations

In compliance with the ethical regulations of our university, this study did not require ethical approval as it involved an anonymous online survey with no collection of personally identifiable information, posing no risk to participants.

Consent to participate

Participants provided informed consent prior to participation by voluntarily completing the online survey and confirming their consent through an opt-in checkbox. No personally identifiable information was collected, ensuring participant anonymity and data protection.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the ConTrust research cluster at Goethe University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The data supporting this study are available at .

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biographies

Benedikt E Kratzer is a PhD candidate at the Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany. His research focuses on identity leadership, the psychological processes underlying it, its linguistic manifestations, and the boundary conditions that shape its efficacy.

Sebastian Bänfer holds a PhD in Biomedical Science but has also developed a strong interest in overarching organizational processes, including leadership and management. He also holds an MBA degree from Goethe Business School after completing the Executive Master in Pharma and Healthcare program.

Niklas K Steffens is Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Business and Organizational Psychology at The University of Queensland. His work focuses on identity and group processes bound up with leadership, motivation and health in social and organizational contexts.

Rolf van Dick is Professor of Social Psychology at Goethe University and prior to this appointment was at Aston University in Birmingham, UK. His research centers on social identity processes within and between groups and he mainly applies this to organizational behavior.

References

Afonja

Salmon

Quailey

, et al. (2021) Postdocs’ advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses. PloS One 16(5): e0250662.

Alholiby

(2024) Unveiling the key skills and characteristics for the selection of academic leaders in higher education institutions. International Journal of Leadership in Education. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2024.2302045.

Andreadis

Marshall

(2025) Social cure in the time of COVID-19: Social identity and belongingness predict greater well-being and academic motivation in university students. Journal of American College Health 73(2): 569–576.

Bartels

Pruyn

de Jong

, et al. (2007) Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28(2): 173–190.

Becker

Hartwich

Haslam

(2021) Neoliberalism can reduce well-being by promoting a sense of social disconnection, competition, and loneliness. The British Journal of Social Psychology 60(3): 947–965.

Bentley

Peters

Haslam

, et al. (2019) Construction at work: Multiple identities scaffold professional identity development in academia. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 628.

Black

(2015) Qualities of effective leadership in higher education. Open Journal of Leadership 4(2): 54–66.

Bliuc

A-M

Ellis

Goodyear

, et al. (2011) The role of social identification as university student in learning: Relationships between students’ social identity, approaches to learning, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology 31(5): 559–574.

Bolden

Petrov

Gosling

(2009) Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2): 257–277.

10.

Bryman

(2007) Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in Higher Education 32(6): 693–710.

11.

Bryman

Lilley

(2009) Leadership researchers on leadership in higher education. Leadership 5(3): 331–346.

12.

Burrows

(2012) Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review 60(2): 355–372.

13.

Cárdenas

Reid

Zhou

, et al. (2024) Boosting school staff well-being and engagement through identity leadership: The mediating role of organizational climate. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 97(4): 1353–1378.

14.

Castelló

McAlpine

Sala-Bubaré

, et al. (2021) What perspectives underlie ‘researcher identity’? A review of two decades of empirical studies. Higher Education 81(3): 567–590.

15.

Doosje

Ellemers

Spears

(1995) Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31(5): 410–436.

16.

Figgins

Slater

Smith

, et al. (2025) Promote ‘we’ to inspire me: Examining the roles of group identification and trust in the association between identity leadership and follower inspiration. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 23(2): 261–280.

17.

Fladerer

Haslam

Steffens

, et al. (2021) The value of speaking for ‘us’: The relationship between CEOs’ use of I- and we-referencing language and subsequent organizational performance. Journal of Business and Psychology 36(2): 299–313.

18.

Fladerer

Steffens

Haslam

(2020) Bridging gaps in organizations: Leaders as entrepreneurs of identity. In: Jaser

(eds) The Connecting Leader: Serving Concurrently as a Leader and a Follower. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, 67–96.

19.

Fleming

(2020) Dark academia: Despair in the neoliberal business school. Journal of Management Studies 57(6): 1305–1311.

20.

Fransen

Haslam

Steffens

, et al. (2020a) All for us and us for all: Introducing the 5R shared leadership program. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 51: 101762.

21.

Fransen

McEwan

Sarkar

(2020b) The impact of identity leadership on team functioning and well-being in team sport: Is psychological safety the missing link? Psychology of Sport and Exercise 51: 101763.

22.

Frenzel

Haslam

Junker

, et al. (2022) How national leaders keep ‘us’ safe: A longitudinal, four-nation study exploring the role of identity leadership as a predictor of adherence to COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions. BMJ Open 12(5): e054980.

23.

Grajfoner

Rojon

Eshraghian

(2024) Academic leaders: In-role perceptions and developmental approaches. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 52(5): 1178–1205.

24.

Hackman

Oldham

(1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 159–170.

25.

Haslam

Jetten

Cruwys

, et al. (2018) The New Psychology of Health. New York: Routledge.

26.

Haslam

(2004) Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach. London: Sage.

27.

Haslam

(2017) The social identity approach to education and learning: Identification, ideation, interaction, influence and ideology. In: Self and Social Identity in Educational Contexts. London, New York: Routledge, 18–51.

28.

Haslam

(2024) Therapy as identity leadership: Commentary on ‘Robertson et al. (2023): A social identity approach to facilitating therapy groups’. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 31(3): 390–393.

29.

Haslam

Gaffney

Hogg

, et al. (2022) Reconciling identity leadership and leader identity: A dual-identity framework. The Leadership Quarterly 33(4): 101620.

30.

Haslam

Jetten

Haslam

(2019) The social identity approach to health. In: Williams

Kemp

Haslam

Bhui

Bailey

, et al. (eds) Social Scaffolding: Applying the Lessons of Contemporary Social Science to Health and Healthcare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 31–39.

31.

Haslam

Jetten

Waghorn

(2009) Social identification, stress and citizenship in teams: A five-phase longitudinal study. Stress and Health 25(1): 21–30.

32.

Haslam

Reicher

(2012) When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(2): 154–179.

33.

Haslam

Reicher

Platow

(2020) The New Psychology of Leadership. Oxfordshire: Routledge.

34.

Haslam

Reutas

Bentley

, et al. (2023) Developing engaged and ‘teamful’ leaders: A randomized controlled trial of the 5R identity leadership program. PloS One 18(5): e0286263.

35.

Haslam

Steffens

Peters

, et al. (2017) A social identity approach to leadership development: The 5R program. Journal of Personnel Psychology 16(3): 113–124.

36.

Hornsey

(2008) Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2(1): 204–222.

37.

Hou

Song

Zheng

, et al. (2021) Linking identity leadership and team performance: The role of group-based pride and leader political skill. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 676945.

38.

Hoult

Mansell

Slater

(2024) The influence of a reflective identity leadership intervention on perceived identity leadership, social identity, and psychological safety in cricket. Behavioral Sciences 14(8): 655.

39.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

40.

Janssen

(2000) Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(3): 287–302.

41.

Kaluza

Weber

van Dick

, et al. (2021) When and how health-oriented leadership relates to employee well-being—the role of expectations, self-care, and LMX. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 51(4): 404–424.

42.

Kanter

(1996) When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In: Myers

(eds) Knowledge Management and Organizational Design. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 93–131.

43.

Khumalo

Dumont

Waldzus

(2022) Leaders’ influence on collective action: An identity leadership perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 33(4): 101609.

44.

Kratzer

van Dick

(2025) Identity leadership in turbulent times. In: Garretsen

Stoker

(eds) Leadership in a Turbulent Era. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 172–193.

45.

Krug

Geibel

Otto

(2021) Identity leadership and well-being: Team identification and trust as underlying mechanisms. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 42(1): 17–31.

46.

Kusurkar

van der Burgt

SME

Isik

, et al. (2021) Burnout and engagement among PhD students in medicine: The BEeP study. Perspectives on Medical Education 10(2): 110–117.

47.

Pham

Kim

, et al. (2021) The impacts of supervisor – PhD student relationships on PhD students’ satisfaction: A case study of Vietnamese universities. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice 18(4): 18.

48.

Lee

Platow

Haslam

, et al. (2021) Facilitating goals, tasks, and bonds via identity leadership: Understanding the therapeutic working alliance as the outcome of social identity processes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 25(4): 271–287.

49.

Levecque

Anseel

de Beuckelaer

, et al. (2017) Work organization and mental health problems in PhD students. Research Policy 46(4): 868–879.

50.

Lorenz

(2012) If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance? Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management. Critical Inquiry 38(3): 599–629.

51.

Lyu

Sun

(2025) Identity leadership and knowledge sharing in university administration: The mediating role of team identification and ingroup bias. The Journal of Behavioral Science 20(1): 1–13.

52.

Maheshwari

Kha

(2023) A bibliometric analysis of influence of leadership styles on employees and organization in higher education sector from 2007 to 2022. International Journal of Leadership in Education. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2023.2236968.

53.

Maslach

Jackson

(1981) The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2(2): 99–113.

54.

Miron

Branscombe

Ball

, et al. (2022) An interpretative phenomenological analysis of social identity transition in academic retirement. Work, Aging and Retirement 8(1): 82–97.

55.

Montano

Reeske

Franke

, et al. (2017) Leadership, followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta-analysis from an occupational health perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(3): 327–350.

56.

Morris

(2012) Perspectives and thoughts on leadership development in higher education. E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership 10(1): 33–36.

57.

Mountz

Bonds

Mansfield

, et al. (2015) For slow scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university. An International Journal for Critical Geographies 14(4): 1235–1259.

58.

Mula

Rodríguez

Domingo Segovia

, et al. (2022) Early career researchers’ identity: A qualitative review. Higher Education Quarterly 76(4): 786–799.

59.

Muldoon

Haslam

, et al. (2019) The social psychology of responses to trauma: Social identity pathways associated with divergent traumatic responses. European Review of Social Psychology 30(1): 311–348.

60.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Moorman

, et al. (1990) Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 1(2): 107–142.

61.

Posit Team (2024) RStudio: Integrated development environment for R. Available at: www.posit.co (accessed 13 August 2025).

62.

R Core Team (2024) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at: www.r-project.org (accessed 13 August 2025).

63.

Rehbock

Pircher Verdorfer

Knipfer

(2021) Rate my professor: Implicit leadership theories in academia. Studies in Higher Education 46(8): 1590–1602.

64.

Reicher

(2004) The context of social identity: Domination, resistance, and change. Political Psychology 25(6): 921–945.

65.

Reicher

Haslam

Platow

(2018) Shared social identity in leadership. Current Opinion in Psychology 23: 129–133.

66.

Riketta

(2005) Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 66(2): 358–384.

67.

Riketta

van Dick

(2005) Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67(3): 490–510.

68.

Roccas

Brewer

(2002) Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6(2): 88–106.

69.

Rosseel

(2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 48(2): 1–36.

70.

Scott

Bruce

(1994) Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37(3): 580–607.

71.

Shore

Wright

(2000) Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In: Strathern

(ed) Audit Cultures: Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. New York: Routledge, 57–89.

72.

Sidorenkov

Borokhovski

Stroh

, et al. (2022) Multiple identifications of employees in an organization: Salience and relationships of foci and dimensions. Behavioral Sciences 12(6): 182.

73.

Simonsen

I-E

Rundmo

(2020) The role of school identification and self-efficacy in school satisfaction among Norwegian high-school students. Social Psychology of Education 23(6): 1565–1586.

74.

Sluss

van Dick

Thompson

(2011) Role theory in organizations: A relational perspective. In: Zedeck

(eds) APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 1: Building and Developing the Organization. Washington: American Psychological Association, 505–534.

75.

Song

Yang

(2023) Striving transition for university academics: The academic role identity of young postdocs at universities in China. SAGE Open 13(1): 1–15.

76.

Steffens

Haslam

Reicher

, et al. (2014) Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the identity leadership inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly 25(5): 1001–1024.

77.

Steffens

Haslam

Schuh

, et al. (2017) A meta-analytic review of social identification and health in organizational contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Review 21(4): 303–335.

78.

Steffens

Tatachari

Haslam

, et al. (2024) Introducing and validating a single-item measure of identity leadership: The visual identity leadership scale (VILS). The British Journal of Social Psychology 63(4): 1658–1680.

79.

Steffens

Yang

Jetten

, et al. (2018) The unfolding impact of leader identity entrepreneurship on burnout, work engagement, and turnover intentions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 23(3): 373–387.

80.

Stevens

Rees

Cruwys

(2021) Social identity leadership in sport and exercise: Current status and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 55: 101931.

81.

Sutherland

(2017) Constructions of success in academia: An early career perspective. Studies in Higher Education 42(4): 743–759.

82.

Ullrich

Wieseke

Christ

, et al. (2007) The identity-matching principle: Corporate and organizational identification in a franchising system. British Journal of Management 18(s1): 29–44.

83.

van Dick

Grojean

Christ

, et al. (2006) Identity and the extra mile: Relationships between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behaviour. British Journal of Management 17(4): 283–301.

84.

van Dick

Kerschreiter

(2016) The social identity approach to effective leadership: An overview and some ideas on cross-cultural generalizability. Frontiers of Business Research in China 10(3): 363–384.

85.

van Dick

Lemoine

Steffens

, et al. (2018) Identity leadership going global: Validation of the identity leadership inventory across 20 countries. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 91(4): 697–728.

86.

van Knippenberg

(2000) Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology 49(3): 357–371.

87.

Vilkinas

(2002) The PhD process: The supervisor as manager. Education + Training 44(3): 129–137.

88.

Wang

Soetanto

Cai

, et al. (2022) Scientist or entrepreneur? Identity centrality, university entrepreneurial mission, and academic entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of Technology Transfer 47(1): 119–146.

89.

Watermeyer

Bolden

Knight

, et al. (2025) Academic anomie: Implications of the ‘great resignation’ for leadership in post-COVID higher education. Higher Education 89: 1215–1233.

90.

White

, 2020. The role of group membership and social identity leadership on the resilience of royal air force personnel . PhD Thesis. Loughborough University, UK.

91.

Zhang

Wang

(2021) Organizational identification and employees’ innovative behavior: The mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of creative self-efficacy. Chinese Management Studies 16(5): 1108–1123.

92.

Zou

Guo

, et al. (2019) Who am I? The influence of social identification on academic entrepreneurs’ role conflict. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 15(2): 363–384.

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.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.22 MB

0.03 MB