Embodying who we are: leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness

By D. van Knippenberg. 2011

341 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/495c47d790442ece273583bf58a3d7d088ae3fe7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Evaluation of and support for group prototypical leaders: a meta-analysis of twenty years of empirical research (2017, methodology): “We have chosen this broad and inclusive construct, used by Van Knippenberg (2011) in his narrative review, to get an accurate assessment of the overall relationship between leader prototypicality and general leader evaluations.”
An Investigation of Authentic Leadership’s Individual and Group Influences on Follower Responses (2018, background): “…reinforcement will influence a follower to adopt those values, and in doing so, the follower will become more similar to the leader and thus more likely to identify with the leader and to feel positively about the leader (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Sherony & Green, 2002; van Knippenberg, 2011).”
The emotional link: Leadership and the role of implicit and explicit emotional contagion processes across multiple organizational levels (2015, background): “More broadly, these findings also suggest that emotions are an integral part of group identity, and is a symbolic aspect of group identity shaped by leaders through expressions of desired, group-relevant emotions (Pescosolido, 2002; Thomas, Martin, & Riggio, 2013; van Knippenberg, 2011).”
The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments (2012, background): “, & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). ‘‘License to fail’’: Goal definition, leader group”
Self-uncertainty and Support for Autocratic Leadership (2013, background): “There is now robust empirical support for this idea and its application to a wide range of leadership phenomena (see Ellemers, de Gilder, & Haslam, 2004; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg, 2011; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004).”
How leader role identity influences the process of leader emergence: A social network analysis (2018, background): “Furthermore, social-identity based perspectives explain leader effectiveness primarily through perceived leader prototypicality (van Knippenberg, 2011), but are generally silent regarding how emerging leaders develop specific leadership skills and competencies (Ibarra et al., 2014).”
Moralized Leadership: The Construction and Consequences of Ethical Leader Perceptions (2015, background): “Scholars have often noted the importance of fairness in leadership (van Knippenberg, 2011).”
Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four-dimensional model (2014, background): “…that refers to the extent to which a leader is seen to be representative of leaders in general (i.e., of the category of a leader rather than the particular group that a leader is leading). means to be ‘one of us’ (van Knippenberg, 2011, p. 1079; see also Steffens, Haslam, Kessler, & Ryan, 2013).”
Identity leadership going global: Validation of the Identity Leadership Inventory across 20 countries (2018, background): “…group), the more effective they are – for example, being trusted more, securing more follower support, and having greater leeway to make decisions (Barreto & Hogg, 2017; Hogg, van Knippenberg, & Rast, 2012; Platow, Haslam, Reicher, & Steffens, 2015; Turner & Haslam, 2001; van Knippenberg, 2011).”
Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality (2020, methodology): “…anchor for other members to the extent that they represent the shared social reality of the group by embodying the collective sense of self (i.e., “we”) that is important to these other group members (Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Steffens et al., 2014; van Knippenberg, 2011).”
An Identity Perspective on Ethical Leadership to Explain Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Interplay of Follower Moral Identity and Leader Group Prototypicality (2019, methodology): “Specifically, the social identity model of leadership effectiveness (Hogg 2001; van Knippenberg 2011) argues that group membership carries identity implications for individuals, helping them to define who they are and develop a shared mindset about beliefs and values with other group members.”
A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research (2014, neutral): “…2000; Lord & Shondrick, 2011; Mumford, Connelly, & Gaddis, 2003; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, & Byrne, 2007; Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2005; van Knippenberg, 2011; van Quaquebeke, van Knippenberg, & Brodbeck, 2011; Zaccaro, Mumford, Connelly, Marks, & Gilbert, 2000).”