Evaluation of and support for group prototypical leaders: a meta-analysis of twenty years of empirical research

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality (2020, background): “…a growing body of research that provides empirical support for this proposition and the broader tenets of a social identity approach to leadership (Barreto & Hogg, 2017; Epitropaki et al., 2017; Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg et al., 2012; Steffens et al., 2014; van Dick et al., 2018; van Knippenberg,…”
Uncertain Self in a Changing World: A Foundation for Radicalisation, Populism, and Autocratic Leadership (2020, background): “…was attributable to how group prototypical the leader was considered to be, and that the relationship was strongest for leader trust (40% of variance explained, r = .63) and when the group was considered more self-conceptually important (36% of variance explained, r = .60) (Barreto & Hogg, 2017).”
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).”