In a recent study, van Knippenberg and Lee concluded that supervisor's organizational embodiment (SOE) is another name for leader group prototypicality (LGP) and that given LGP's primacy in time and research presence, the field should forego the SOE label and refer to the construct as LGP. In a commentary on that study, Gonzales-Morales, Stinglhamber, Neves, and Becker criticized our conclusions. In this essay, we respond to their criticism. We agree that more evidence allows for stronger conclusions (one of their points of critique). Most of their critique, however, is grounded in misrepresentation of the social identity theory of leadership, the research concerning the theory, and the publication history of LGP and SOE. We conclude that the van Knippenberg and Lee conclusions stand as strong as before.
CiceroL.BonaiutoM.PierroA.van KnippenbergD.2008. Employees work effort as a function of leader group prototypicality: The moderating role of team identification. European Review of Applied Psychology, 58(1), 117–124.
2.
CiceroL.PierroA.van KnippenbergD.2007. Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification. Group Dynamics, 11(3), 165–175.
3.
CiceroL.PierroA.van KnippenbergD.2010. Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 411–421.
4.
De CremerD.van DijkeM.MayerD. M.2010. Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1121–1113.
5.
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M.HarquailC. V.1994. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239–263.
6.
EisenbergerR.KaragonlarG.StinglhamberF.NevesP.BeckerT. E.Gonzalez-MoralesM. G.Steiger-MuellerM.2010. Leader-member exchange and affective organizational commitment: The contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1085–1103.
7.
EisenbergerR.ShossM. K.KaragonlarG.Gonzalez-MoralesM. G.WickhamR. E.BuffardiL. C.2014. The supervisor POS – LMX – subordinate POS chain: Moderation by reciprocation wariness supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), 635–656.
8.
FieldingK. S.HoggM. A.1997. Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics, 1(1), 39–51.
9.
GiessnerS. R.van KnippenbergD.2008. License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 14–35.
10.
GiessnerS. R.van KnippenbergD.SleebosE.2009. License to fail?: How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 434–451.
11.
Gonzalez-MoralesM. G.StinglhamberF.NevesP.BeckerT.2023. Comment on van knippenberg and lee (2023): SOE is walking the talk of the organization. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(2), 94–105.
12.
HainsS. C.HoggM. A.DuckJ. M.1997. Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(5), 1087–1100.
13.
HirstG.van DickR.van KnippenbergD.2009. A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 963–982.
14.
HoggM. A.2001. A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
15.
HoggM. A.FieldingK. S.JohnsonD.MasserB.RussellE.SvenssonA.2006. Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social identity analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 335–350.
16.
HoggM. A.HainsS. C.MasonI.1998. Identification and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference, and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1248–1263.
17.
HoggM. A.van KnippenbergD.2003. Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 1–52.
18.
JansonA.LevyL.SitkinS. B.LindE. A.2008. Fairness and other leadership heuristics: A four-nation study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 251–272.
19.
KalshovenK.Den HartogD. N.2009. Ethical leader behavior and leader effectiveness: The role of prototypicality and trust. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(2), 102–120.
20.
LipponenJ.KoivistoS.OlkkonenM. E.2005. Procedural justice and status judgements: The moderating role of leader ingroup prototypicality. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 517–528.
21.
PierroA.CiceroL.BonaiutoM.van KnippenbergD.KruglanskiA. W.2005. Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of need for cognitive closure. Leadership Quarterly, 16(4), 503–516.
22.
PierroA.CiceroL.BonaiutoM.van KnippenbergD.KruglanskiA. W.2007. Leader group prototypicality and resistance to organizational change: The moderating role of need for closure and team identification. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 14(1), 27–40.
23.
PierroA.CiceroL.HigginsE. T.2009. Followers’ satisfaction from working with group-prototypic leaders: Promotion focus as moderator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1105–1110.
24.
PlatowM. J.van KnippenbergD.2001. A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1508–1519.
25.
PlatowM. J.van KnippenbergD.HaslamS. A.van KnippenbergB.SpearsR.2006. A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of US: Considering leader charisma from a self-categorization perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(3), 303–320.
26.
PrattM. G.SchultzM.AshforthB. E.RavasiD.2016. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.
27.
ShossM. K.EisenbergerR.RestubogS. L. D.ZagenzcyckT. J.2013. Blaming the organization for abusive supervision: The roles of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 158–168.
28.
SlussD. M.PloyhartR. E.CobbM. G.AshforthB. E.2012. Generalizing newcomers; relational and organizational identifications: Processes and prototypicality. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 949–975.
29.
SteffensN. K.MuntK. A.van KnippenbergD.PlatowM. J.HaslamS. A.2021. Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(1), 35–72.
30.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM.OakesP. J.ReicherS.WetherellM.1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
31.
UllrichJ.ChristO.van DickR.2009. Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 235–244.
32.
van DijkeM.De CremerD.2008. How leader prototypicality affects followers’ status: The role of procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 226–250.
33.
van DijkeM.De CremerD.2010. Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 85–96.
34.
van KnippenbergB.van KnippenbergD.2005. Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 25–37.
35.
van KnippenbergD.2011. Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1078–1091.
36.
van KnippenbergD.HoggM. A.2003. A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25: 243–295.
37.
van KnippenbergD.LeeD.2023. Supervisor’s organizational embodiment is leader group prototypicality: Addressing construct redundancy through replication. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(1), 42–71.
