Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and leadership ...

The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Embodying who we are: Leader group prototypicality and
leadership effectiveness
Daan van Knippenberg
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
article info abstract
Available online 22 October 2011
Keywords:
Leadership categorization
Leadership effectiveness
Leader fairness
Leader group prototypicality
Social identity
Social identification
Trust
Uncertainty
Leadership is a process enacted in the context of a shared group membership, and leadership
effectiveness is contingent on followers' perceptions of the leader as a group member. Addressing
this role of group membership, the social identity theory of leadership puts leader group
prototypicality, the extent to which the leader is perceived to embody group identity, centerstage
in leadership effectiveness. I review empirical research in leader group prototypicality,
concluding there is a robust empirical basis for the key propositions of the social identity theory
of leadership. I also identify newer developments that extend and enrich the social identity analysis
of leadership, including attention to the roles of uncertainty, leader fairness, leader–follower
relationship, leader self-perceived prototypicality, and leadership of creativity and innovation.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Leadership is on the agenda of behavioral research for more than a hundred years. This is not surprising if we consider that
leadership is such a natural and basic element of social groups. Indeed, it is hard to think of human groups without some form
of leadership structure, even if only informally (cf. Halevy, Chou, & Galinsky, 2011). Moreover, typically no member of a social
group – be it a work team, organization, nation, or other social grouping – is better positioned to impact the functioning of the
group than a leader. Not surprisingly then, the question of what makes leaders effective in mobilizing and motivating followers
lies at the core to leadership research. To address this question leadership research has covered a wide range of influences on
leadership effectiveness including leader personality (e.g., Judge,Bono,Ilies,&Gerhardt,2002), leader behavioral styles (e.g., Bass,
1985; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004), and social exchange relationships between leaders and followers
(e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1958).
In view of the fact that leadership is so inextricably embedded in groups, it is perhaps somewhat ironic that none of these
perspectives on leadership really engages with the implications of the fact that leaders are also members of the groups they
lead. Leadership is a process that is enacted in the context of a group membership shared by leader and followers — the President
of the United States is an American citizen, the CEO is a member of the organization, the team leader is a member of the team (or
at least of the same organization), and so forth. Accordingly, responses to leadership may be informed by characteristics of the
leader as group member (e.g., who is the President as an American?) and an understanding of the psychology of group membership
may be important to our understanding of leadership effectiveness. This is the issue that assumes center-stage in the social identity
theory of leadership (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003).
In this review, I outline the social identity theory of leadership from its first conceptual articulation in Hogg (2001), via the integration
of two independent streams of research by Hogg and colleagues (Fielding & Hogg, 1997; Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Hogg, Hains, &
Mason, 1998) and van Knippenberg and colleagues (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a;
van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & van Dijk, 2000) in the most full-blown articulation of the social identity theory of leadership
(van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), to more recent developments and extensions that took place after the publication of the 2003
E-mail address: dvanknippenberg@rsm.nl.
1048-9843/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1079
formulation of the theory. I only present a concise review of the earlier work in the social identity analysis of leadership, because such
reviews can also be found elsewhere (Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), and the current review prioritizes
more recent empirical developments that took place after, or had a smaller presence in, the 2003 articulation of the theory.
Core to the social identity theory of leadership is the proposition that leaders are more effective in mobilizing and influencing
followers the more they are seen as group prototypical — to embody what is defining of the group identity (Hogg, 2001). Leader group
prototypicality therefore is the unifying theme in this review, and the aim of this review is to take stock of the state of the science in
empirical research in leader group prototypicality. This is not to say that the social identity theory is limited to the role of leader group
prototypicality. It is not, and also highlights such influences as leader group-oriented behavior (e.g., leader self-sacrifice; van Knippenberg
& van Knippenberg, 2005a; cf.Platow, Haslam, Foddy, & Grace, 2003; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005). Such influences are not
unique to the social identity analysis of leadership, though (cf. Lord & Brown, 2004; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, De Cremer, & Hogg, 2004), and will be covered here mainly, or only, in relationship to leader group prototypicality
to highlight the unique contribution of the social identity theory of leadership to our understanding of leadership effectiveness.
This review is structured as follows. First, I briefly outline the basic propositions of the social identity theory of leadership. I follow
this up with an updated review of the evidence for these basic propositions that also highlights areas where evidence may be sparser
than ideally it would be. Subsequently, I review a series of more recent developments in the social identity analysis of leadership. In
conclusion, I take stock of where this combined evidence leaves us in terms of the current state of our understanding of the role of
leader group prototypicality in leadership effectiveness as well as in terms of an agenda for future research to develop this core aspect
of the social identity theory of leadership.
2. Social identity and leader group prototypicality
To understand how the group membership shared by leader and followers informs followers' responses to leadership (i.e., and
thus leadership effectiveness) it is important to realize that group memberships have identity implications. Group memberships
reflect on how we see ourselves and others. Social identity captures this group membership-based aspect of identity or selfconception
(identity and self can be used interchangeably here). It refers to that part of an individual's sense of self that is rooted
in the individual's group membership — the part that gives people a sense of “we” and includes other members of the group in
one's sense of self (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). This is not
to say that all group memberships are equally self-defining for all people. The concept of social identification (i.e., including
organizational identification, team identification, etc.; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000) captures the
extent to which an individual defines the self in terms of a particular group membership. The higher the identification with a particular
group, the more the individual sees the self in terms of the membership in that group, the more the individual has a sense
of “we” connected to that group (i.e., rather than of “I” as a unique individual). The higher identification, the more the individual
perceives the self in terms of characteristics that are typical of the group, and the more perceptions, attitudes, and behavior are
governed by the group membership (Hogg, 2003; Turner et al., 1987).
Two influences associated with social identification in particular are relevant to an understanding of leadership effectiveness.
First, social identification leads one to experience the group identity as not only self-describing but also as self-guiding. Group
identity includes a shared sense of social reality that reflects what the group believes, values, and sees as appropriate and important:
it has a normative element to it, and this group-normative influence is internalized through a process of social identification.
Put differently, through social identification group identity becomes a source of social influence — a source of information about
social reality and about what is appropriate and desirable (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Turner et al., 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000a).
Second, because it implies seeing the self through the lens of group membership, social identification entails taking the group's
best interest to heart — indeed, experiencing the group interest as the self interest (i.e., the interest of an inclusive “we”, of the
collective self; Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Turner et al., 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000b). These two influences provide an important
link with responses to leadership as they are informed by social identification.
Building on research in cognitive psychology (Rosch, 1978), the social identity approach outlines how social groups are mentally
represented as group prototypes, fuzzy sets of characteristics that capture the characteristics that define the group (Hogg,
2001; Turner et al., 1987). Group prototypes capture what is group-defining and in that sense represent the ideal-type of the
group more than the group average. Translated to a hypothetical group member, the group prototypical group member would
not be Joe Sixpack, but rather embody what is perceived to be the ideal-type of “who we are”. In this respect, it may also be important
to note that prototypes are not restricted to – indeed do not even need to include – demographic attributes. Group prototypes
capture the socially shared reality of the group, and thus include what the group values, believes, and considers
important, and what are seen as appropriate and desirable behaviors and courses of action. In effect, group prototypes capture
what is group-normative. The notion of group identity as a source of social influence can thus be rephrased as the group prototype
as a source of social influence for those who identify with the group.
2.1. Leader group prototypicality
Core to the social identity theory of leadership is the notion that group leaders, like all group members, differ in the extent to
which they are perceived to represent or embody the group prototype — are group prototypical (i.e., social identity is individual
self-definition, and the perception of group prototypicality thus at its root is individual cognition even when such perceptions
often are socially shared). To the extent that a leader is perceived to be group prototypical – that is, to embody the group

1080 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
(team, organizational) identity, to embody “who we are”–the leader derives influence from the implicit perception that he or she
represents what is group-normative (Hogg, 2001; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; cf. van
Knippenberg, 2000a; van Knippenberg, Lossie, & Wilke, 1994). In addition, leader group prototypicality speaks to followers' motivation
to pursue the group's interest. Because group prototypical leaders are perceived to embody the group identity and thus
also what the group values and considers important, group prototypicality induces trust in the leader's motivation to pursue the
group's best interest (cf. the benevolence aspect of trustworthiness; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995) and therefore follower
openness to the leader's influence (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003; van Knippenberg &
van Knippenberg, 2005a; cf. Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Leaders should thus be more effective the more followers perceive them to
be group prototypical.
For similar reasons, individuals should also be more likely to emerge as leaders the more they are group prototypical. Group
prototypicality gives group members the influence to emerge as leaders (cf. van Knippenberg et al., 1994), and in interacting
groups other group members may also implicitly convey this expectation to group prototypical members, in a sense “giving
the floor” to them to emerge as leaders (cf. Ridgeway, 2003). While clearly the emphasis in research in the social identity theory
of leadership has been on the effectiveness of individuals in leadership positions, there is also evidence supporting the role of
group member prototypicality in emergent leadership (Fielding & Hogg, 1997; van Knippenberg et al., 2000).
The influence of leader group prototypicality is tied to group identification. It is not unreasonable to assume that most members of
most groups identify with the group at least to a modest degree. Leader group prototypicality can thus be expected to be an influence
in most if not all groups. Even so, the influence of leader group prototypicality will be stronger the more group members identify with
the group and social identity is salient (Hogg, 2001). 1 Put differently, while all other things being equal leader group prototypicality
may have a main effect on leadership effectiveness, the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness
is also moderated by social identification: the higher the identification, the stronger the relationship between prototypicality and effectiveness.
This proposition too is well-supported (Cicero, Bonaiuto, Pierro & van Knippenberg, 2008; Fielding & Hogg, 1997; Giessner
& van Knippenberg, 2008; Hains et al., 1997; Hirst, van Dick, & van Knippenberg, 2009; Hogg, Fielding, Johnson, Masser, Russell, &
Svensson, 2006; Hogg et al., 1998; Pierro, Cicero, Bonaiuto, van Knippenberg, & Kruglanski, 2007; Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001;
Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick, 2009; van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008, 2010).
2.2. Group versus leadership prototypes
The social identity theory proposes that group prototypes form a “benchmark” against which leaders are implicitly judged (i.e.,
leader group prototypicality is leader similarity to the group prototype). Leadership research has also documented how (potential)
leaders are judged against a leadership prototype — a mental representation of (good) leadership (i.e., leadership categorization
theory; Lord, Foti, & DeVader, 1984; Lord & Maher, 1991; cf. Eagly & Karau, 2002). Given that these two perspectives are
rooted in the same cognitive-psychological research in categorization and prototypes (Rosch, 1978), a question that naturally
emerged is how the two are related. The answer advanced by Hogg (2001) is that leadership and group prototypes are not mutually
exclusive as benchmarks for responses to leadership, but that the relative importance of each is contingent on social identification
(and social identity salience). The higher the identification, the more perceptions, attitudes, and actions are governed by
social identity, the greater the importance of group prototypes relative to leadership prototypes in responses to leadership. This
proposition is consistently supported in a series of studies (Fielding & Hogg, 1997; Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 1998; Platow &
van Knippenberg, 2001) to the apparent satisfaction of researchers in both leadership categorization (Lord & Hall, 2003) and
group prototypicality (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003) that have both embraced the proposition.
Leadership categorization theory also helps explain biases against certain demographic groups in assessments of leadership
qualities (cf. the “glass ceiling”). Eagly and Karau (2002) and Eagly and Carli (2007) outline how stereotypical beliefs about
good leadership (cf. leadership prototypes) tend to emphasize stereotypically male characteristics much more than stereotypically
female characteristics. Accordingly, in the “benchmarking” process described by leadership categorization theory there is a tendency
to perceive greater leadership qualities in male than in female (potential) leaders. In an interesting and potentially
important twist to this analysis, Hogg et al. (2006) propose that group (or organizational) prototypes may also be gendered and
thus inform responses to male and female leaders (cf. Gartzia, 2010). In an experiment, Hogg et al. compared perceptions of male
and female leaders as a function of whether group norms (cf. prototypes) emphasized stereotypically masculine (“instrumental”)
or stereotypically feminine (“expressive”) qualities. They argued that the match between the gendered group norm and leader gender
would render either male or female leaders more group prototypical and thus influence their perceived effectiveness accordingly.
This is exactly what they observed contingent on two other factors they introduced into the design: social identity salience (i.e.,
which would render group prototypicality a more important influence in leadership effectiveness) and the extent to which participants
held traditional gender attitudes. The rationale for this latter influence is that gendered norms would only influence gender-
1 The fact that one identifies with a group does not mean that this social identity is always salient (i.e., cognitively activated; Turner et al., 1987). Strictly speaking
then, social identity salience is what triggers the influence of social identification: while identification is the more enduring factor, it is the more contextual
influence of salience that activates the influence of identification (e.g., van Knippenberg, 2000b). The social identity analysis thus points to the role of social identity
salience as well as of social identification (i.e., assuming at least a modest level of identification, social identity salience would moderate leader group prototypicality
effects), and this moderating role of salience has been supported in experimental studies (Hains et al., 1997; Hogg et al., 2006). Even so, the emphasis in
research in the social identity analysis at large has been on identification rather than salience, and I likewise prioritize it here. Moreover, for the present purposes I
discuss evidence pertaining to identification and to salience as interchangeable as they concern the same point: the influence of leader group prototypicality is
rooted in social identity and thus obtains more strongly the more followers respond to leadership on the basis of their social identity.

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1081
based perceptions of leader group prototypicality to the extent that people hold traditional gender attitudes that would associate men
and women with these stereotypical traits. Results supported these predictions, showing that gendered group norms may
render leader group prototypicality contingent on leader gender.
Because most organizations are male-dominated environments, stereotypically male characteristics may be more likely to be
seen as group prototypical (Gartzia, 2010). Accordingly, in many organizations leadership prototypes and group prototypes may
converge to introduce a bias in favor of male leadership (i.e., given the gendered nature of leadership prototypes; Eagly & Karau,
2002). That is, it may not only be more general leadership prototypes that introduce biases against female leadership, but also more
“local” group and organizational prototypes. Accordingly, addressing the glass ceiling may revolve as much around addressing local
group prototypes as around addressing more societal stereotypes. This analysis begs the question of whether similar conclusions
would hold for the difficulties facing other groups that are underrepresented in leadership positions such as cultural minorities. Do
the prototypical representations of organizations also favor characteristics that are stereotypically associated more with the cultural
majority group than with cultural minority groups? Further development of the social identity analysis along these lines may advance
our understanding of the glass ceiling more generally.
2.3. Leader group prototypicality and group-oriented behavior
A core element in the strand of leader group prototypicality research championed by van Knippenberg and colleagues is that leader
group prototypicality in part derives its effectiveness from the perception that group prototypical leaders can be trusted to pursue the
group's best interest (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Giessner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, 2009; van Knippenberg & Hogg,
2003; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a). The implication of this is that to be effective nonprototypical leaders have to
build follower trust in their group-oriented motives (cf. benevolence; Mayer et al., 1995) through their actions (i.e., engage in
group-oriented behavior), whereas group prototypical leaders are effective whether they engage in group-oriented behavior or
not. That is, leader group prototypicality and leader group-oriented behavior interact to affect leadership effectiveness.
This prediction has been supported for a variety of instantiations of leader group-oriented behavior such as leader self-sacrifice on
behalf of the group (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a; cf.Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993), group-serving
allocation decisions (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001), and appeals to the collective interest rather than to follower self-interest
(Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2006; cf.Bass, 1985; House, 1971). Supporting the notion that
these effects are rooted in social identity, Platow and van Knippenberg (2001) also confirmed that the interactive effect of leader
group prototypicality and leader group-oriented behavior is stronger for followers that identify more with the group.
Extending this analysis, the social identity theory thus also posits that leader group-oriented behavior feeds into leadership
effectiveness, and more so for followers identifying more strongly with the group (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). These predictions
too have been well-supported (e.g., Haslam & Platow, 2001; Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, & Morrison, 1997). This emphasis on
group-oriented behavior also provides a clear linkage with theories of charismatic leadership that point to such behaviors as leader selfsacrifice
as an aspect of charismatic leadership (Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993). Indeed, leader
group prototypicality has been shown to affect perceptions of charisma (Platow et al., 2006; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg,
2005a), and as van Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) argue, here lies a clear opportunity for a more integrative treatment of the social
identity analysis of leadership and analyses of charismatic leadership that accord a clear role to social identity even when they do
not include a role for leader group prototypicality (Shamir et al., 1993; cf.Conger, Kanungo, & Menon, 2000). Van Knippenberg and
Hogg (2003) proposed the outlines of such a theoretical integration, but future research will have to address these issues empirically
to establish the potential of this integration.
2.4. Evaluating the evidence
Ever since its earliest tests in the 1990s, the social identity analysis of leadership has yielded remarkably robust evidence for
the role of leader group prototypicality in leadership effectiveness. In short, I am not aware of a single study that does not report a
positive influence of leader group prototypicality on leadership effectiveness nor of a study that includes a negative influence.
These findings hold across methods and populations, indicators of leadership effectiveness, and countries.
Evidence for the key propositions of the social identity theory of leadership as well as its newer developments derives from
laboratory experiments, scenario experiments (i.e., assessing responses to hypothetical situations), and surveys in the field.
Indeed, several studies tested the same hypotheses across methodologies, thus establishing that findings cannot be attributed
to any specific aspect of sample or methodology and establishing that the relationships may be observed for leadership in organizations
as well as establishing causality in these relationships through experimental manipulations (De Cremer, van Dijke, &
Mayer, 2010; Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Giessner et al., 2009; Pierro, Cicero, & Higgins, 2009; Ullrich, Christ, & van
Dick, 2009; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a).
Noteworthy in this respect is that most of the field studies in leader group prototypicality relied on the measure of leader
group prototypicality advanced by van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg (2005a) while much of the experimental research
used items of this measure as manipulation check (e.g., Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Ullrich et al., 2009; van Knippenberg
& van Knippenberg, 2005a). This use of the same measurement across methods bolsters the confidence that experimental and
survey findings revolve around the same relationships. As an aside, it also establishes the van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg
measure as the most validated measure of leader group prototypicality, in that it has been shown to be affected by experimental
manipulations designed to target leader group prototypicality specifically, has consistently been associated with the outcomes

1082 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
proposed by the social identity theory of leadership, and has been shown to be empirically distinct from other leadership variables
studied in conjunction. De Cremer et al. (2010) for instance reported that the van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg scale is empirically
distinct from transformational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1995), leader–member exchange (Scandura & Graen, 1984), and leader–team
similarity (cf. Ensher & Murphy, 1997). Even so, construct validation should be a continuous and ongoing process (Schriesheim &
Cogliser, 2009) and future studies would ideally provide further evidence of the validity of the van Knippenberg and van Knippenberg
measure (as well as potentially introduce further refinements of the measure).
The evidence in favor of the effects of leader group prototypicality also derives from a variety of indicators of leadership effectiveness:
performance (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a,b), creativity (Hirst et al., 2009), perceived leadership effectiveness
(e.g., Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Hains et al., 1997; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a), leadership
endorsement (Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001; Ullrich et al., 2009), job satisfaction (e.g., Cicero, Pierro & van Knippenberg,
2010; Cicero et al., 2008; Pierro et al., 2005), turnover intentions (Cicero et al., 2010; Pierro et al., 2005), self-reported work effort
(Cicero et al., 2008; Moriano León, Topa Cantisano, & Lévy Mangin, 2009; Pierro et al., 2005), support for organizational change
(Pierro et al., 2007; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a; van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Bobbio, 2008), and cooperation
intentions and organizational citizenship behavior (De Cremer et al., 2010).
In this respect, it is also important to note that this support for the conclusion that leader group prototypicality has a positive
effect on leadership effectiveness is not limited to subjective perceptions of leadership and other self-rated outcomes that need to
be treated with some suspicion when it comes to judging leadership effectiveness (cf. Lord & Maher, 1991; van Knippenberg,
2012). This evidence also includes multi-source relationships with follower and organizational performance (arguably the
most important indicator of leadership effectiveness; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008), creativity, and organizational citizenship
behavior.
Evidence also derives from a range of countries spanning several continents: Australia (e.g., Fielding & Hogg, 1997; Hains et al.,
1997; Hogg et al., 1998), El Salvador (Moriano León et al., 2009), Finland (Lipponen, Koivista & Olkkonen, 2005), Germany (Giessner
et al., 2009; Janson, Levy, Sitkin, & Lind, 2008; Ullrich et al., 2009), India (Janson et al., 2008), Italy (e.g., Cicero et al., 2007; Pierro et al.,
2005, 2007), New Zealand (Janson et al., 2008), The Netherlands (e.g., Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; van Dijke & De Cremer,
2008; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a), Nicaragua (Moriano León et al., 2009), Sweden (Hirst et al., 2009), the UK
(Hirst et al., 2009), and the US (e.g., De Cremer et al., 2010; Hirst et al., 2009; Janson et al., 2008). Those able to read Japanese may
find that leader group prototypicality also predicts leadership effectiveness in Japan (Sakata, Fujimoto, & Kohguchi, 2005).
Moreover, a couple of these studies included multinational samples and could thus establish that there were no country influences
(Hirst et al., 2009; Janson et al., 2008; Moriano León et al., 2009) or could to the same effect replicate findings across samples
from different countries (De Cremer et al., 2010; Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Janson et al., 2008). The current
evidence would thus suggest that the role of leader group prototypicality in leadership effectiveness is quite universal. Even so,
this may not hold for all the nuances of the prototypicality–effectiveness relationship. Thus, even though the available evidence
points to a universal influence (i.e., within the limits of the countries covered by empirical research), we should be open to new
theory and evidence suggesting cultural variations in the ways leader group prototypicality may affect leadership effectiveness.
Based on the accumulated evidence, then, it seems a safe conclusion that leader group prototypicality has a positive effect on
leadership effectiveness. This influence is moderated by follower social identification and leader group-oriented behavior and obtains
across methodologies, indicators of leadership effectiveness, and countries. There thus is solid evidence for the basic propositions
of the social identity theory of leadership. In the following section, I review more recent extensions and emerging
developments of the analysis of leader group prototypicality.
3. Extensions and emerging developments
3.1. Uncertainty reduction
Group prototypes as a source of information about social reality may also fulfill an important uncertainty-reducing function. Hogg
(2000, 2007) outlines how uncertainty is an aversive psychological state that many people desire to reduce, and how social identity is
important in this respect. By representing a shared social reality, social identities offer group members a means to reduce uncertainty
by relying on their group membership. What this also means is that the greater people's desire to reduce uncertainty, the more they
will fall back on their group memberships (i.e., provided they identify with the group). Extending this to the analysis of leadership
effectiveness, a desire to reduce uncertainty would render followers more sensitive to leader group prototypicality, as the quality
of embodying a shared social reality and group norms would be more important to followers the more they desire to reduce uncertainty.
A series of studies by Pierro and colleagues consistently support this proposition.
In a first study, Pierro et al. (2005) focused on dispositional differences in the need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski & Webster,
1996; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Need for closure reflects intolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity and a desire to reduce uncertainty
and reach closure on judgments, decisions, and actions. As an individual difference variable, it thus perfectly captures individual
differences in the desire to reduce uncertainty that are proposed to moderate the influence of leader group prototypicality. This was
exactly what Pierro et al. found. In a second study, Pierro et al. (2007) showed that the moderating effect of need for closure was
further moderated by identification, thus more firmly establishing the social identity basis of the reliance on leader prototypicality
inspired by need for closure. The desire to reduce uncertainty as captured by need for closure can also be situationally induced.
Thus, extending the need for closure analysis Cicero et al. (2007, 2010) showed that more situational influences that can be

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1083
understood to invite a desire for uncertainty-reduction (stress and role ambiguity) also moderate the leader group prototypicality–
leadership effectiveness relationship.
From the perspective of leadership in organizations, organizational change is probably one of the major situational influences
on uncertainty, and here in particular would one expect leader group prototypicality to be important. Van Knippenberg et al.
(2008) discuss initial evidence that this indeed is the case. They showed that more prototypical leaders invite more willingness
to actively contribute to successful organizational change, especially when the change is associated with greater uncertainty
about its implications for the organization. Van Knippenberg et al. link this influence in particular to the perceived threat to
the continuity of the organizational identity. As embodiment of the shared identity, group prototypical leaders are trusted
more to act as an agent of continuity of identity in times of change, and therefore more effective in eliciting support for the change
especially with greater uncertainty about continuity of identity.
This suggests (albeit tentatively given the current scarcity of supportive evidence) that group prototypical leaders may not
only be able to cater to uncertainty-reduction desires that may arise from reasons external to the leader (e.g., dispositional
need for closure), but may also be able to elicit greater tolerance for inherently uncertain enterprises leaders themselves may
engender like organizational change. Put differently, leader group prototypicality may elicit the necessary trust to take followers
on more challenging and uncertain endeavors, and may thus be an important influence in successful change and innovation (also
see below). In short, while the moderating role of the desire to reduce uncertainty seems relatively well-established, the analysis
in terms of the uncertainty-reduction motive also has less explored but potentially important implications that warrant further
research efforts.
3.2. Leader fairness
Leaders are important sources of outcomes to followers. Leaders make decisions regarding promotions, tenure, educational
opportunities, job assignments, resources, and so forth. Inevitably not all these decisions can yield outcomes favorable to all followers,
and the perceived fairness of the leader in coming to these decisions can be a salient consideration to followers and an
influence on leadership effectiveness. Accordingly, following justice theory (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Lind
& Tyler, 1988; Rupp, 2011; Thibaut & Walker, 1975), leadership research has documented how leader fairness may positively contribute
to leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg, De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2007a). More recently, research also focused
on the interactive influence of leader group prototypicality and leader fairness.
Lind (2001) outlines how fair treatment by authorities has an important function in reducing uncertainty about and instilling
trust in the authority's good intentions. This provides a clear link with the role of leader group prototypicality in reducing uncertainty
and engendering trust, and a couple of studies have advanced and tested the hypothesis that leader group prototypicality
and leader fairness interact such that the one make followers less concerned with the other — leader group prototypicality renders
leader effectiveness less contingent on leader fairness, or conversely leader fairness renders leadership effectiveness less
contingent on leader group prototypicality.
Janson et al. (2008) tested this prediction for both leader procedural fairness (the fairness of the procedures used to arrive at outcomes;
Lind & Tyler, 1988; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and leader interactional fairness (the fairness of interpersonal treatment as evident
in the respect and dignity with which one is treated; Bies & Moag, 1986) and found support for the proposed prototypicality by
fairness interactions. van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, and De Cremer (2005) found support for the prototypicality by procedural
fairness interaction across an experiment (including effects on a behavioral measure of cooperation), a scenario-experiment, and a
survey, but did not find support for a similar interaction with interactional fairness. Ullrich et al. (2009) extended these findings
for procedural fairness by showing that the interaction was further moderated by follower social identification.
The underlying logic here is that both leader group prototypicality and leader procedural fairness increase trust in the leader's
good intentions vis-à-vis the followers. While the linkage between prototypicality and trust was already established independent
of fairness (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a), extending this logic van Dijke and De Cremer (2008, 2010) predicted
and found that leader group prototypicality would also raise perceptions of the leader's procedural fairness following from this
trust, especially for followers that identify more strongly with the collective. Consistent with the mutually attenuating influence
of leader group prototypicality and leader fairness, however, one could then also raise the question of whether leader fairness
would raise the perception of leader group prototypicality, and Kalshoven and Den Hartog (2009) present evidence to that effect
(cf. Janson et al.'s, 2008, notion of leadership heuristics). Extending this logic and consistent with the social identity analysis more
broadly, we may then also expect that leader group-oriented behavior and leader fairness interact to similar effect, and this
indeed has been shown to be the case (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002; Janson et al., 2008).
Other evidence suggests, however, that the issue is more complex where the interactive influence of leader group prototypicality
and leader fairness is concerned. Lipponen et al. (2005) found that leader group prototypicality enhances rather than attenuates the
relationship between leader fairness and followers' self-perceived social standing (i.e., pride and respect; Tyler & Blader, 2000). The
issue here might be that the dependent variable is social self-evaluation and not leadership effectiveness. Procedural fairness not only
conveys the authority's trustworthiness (Lind, 2001). The treatment the authority chooses to give to the recipient also conveys a
social evaluation: more fair treatment conveys a more positive social evaluation. As a result, fairness of treatment has a positive effect
on self-evaluations of the recipient of the treatment (Koper, van Knippenberg, Bouhuijs, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1993). Whereas leader
group prototypicality may render leadership effectiveness less contingent on leader fairness by addressing concerns with leader
trustworthiness that would otherwise be contingent on leader fairness, leader group prototypicality may enhance the impact of leader
fairness on social self-evaluations by increasing the value attached to the social evaluation by the leader.

1084 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
Probably related to this issue are findings by De Cremer et al. (2010) who studied the combined effect of leader group
prototypicality, leader procedural fairness toward the individual, and leader procedural fairness toward others on cooperative intentions
and organizational citizenship behavior. They found that when others were treated fairly, leader group prototypicality enhanced
the effect of leader fairness to self. One reading of these findings which seem at odds with the Janson et al. (2008), Ullrich et al. (2009),
and van Knippenberg et al. (2005) findings, is that the comparison to others' treatment rendered the social evaluation implications of
leader fairness more salient. Unfair treatment of self in the face of fair treatment to others can be interpreted as being discriminated
against, which presumably makes social evaluation a particularly salient concern. Consistent with the current reading of the Lipponen
et al. (2005) findings, this in turn would invite an enhancing rather than an attenuating effect of leader group prototypicality. Consistent
with this reading (i.e., rather than a trustworthiness reading) is the fact that it was not the inconsistency in treatment that
seemed to fuel stronger responses to treatment of self (i.e., which would also imply more negative reactions to fair treatment of
self when others were treated unfairly), but the fact that others were treated fairly (i.e., which would single self out for discrimination
when treated unfairly).
What this research in combination puts on the agenda then, is the finding that leader group prototypicality may attenuate as
well as enhance the effects of leader (procedural) fairness. I propose that the underlying issue here is whether concerns with
leader trustworthiness (attenuating effect) or with social evaluations by the leader (enhancing effect) are more salient in
followers' mind, but clearly this proposition currently awaits a direct test. Such a test could include different dependent variables
(e.g., follower performance vs. follower self-evaluation) as well as contingencies of the relative concern with leader trustworthiness
versus social standing.
3.3. The romance of leadership
Seminal work by Lord (e.g., Lord, Binning, Rush, & Thomas, 1978) and Meindl (e.g., Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985) established
that people have a tendency to overattribute collective performance (i.e., of the team or organization) to leadership, especially
performance that stands out as being a clear success or failure. People have a tendency to see successful team or organizational
performance as a sign of good leadership and poor performance as indicative of bad leadership and more so than would be justified
on the basis of the evidence (e.g., bad performance could also be due to circumstances; under some conditions the best leadership
could hope to achieve is mediocre performance, etc.). Meindl et al. (1985) dubbed the underlying issue here the “romance of leadership”,
arguing that people are more ready than is objectively justified to attribute events to leadership (i.e., as opposed to other influences such
as the situation).
Giessner and colleagues (Giessner & van Knippenberg, 2008; Giessner et al., 2009) noted that the research on leadership perceptions
as a function of leader or collective performance revolved around uninvolved “observers” andraisedthequestionof
how people would respond to leadership after success or failure if it concerned their leader and the success or failure of their
team or organization. They argued that leader group prototypicality would be an important influence here, because leader
group prototypicality would in a sense give leaders a “license to fail”: trust in their leadership would color perceptions of
group prototypical leaders' performance such that poor performance would reflect less on the evaluations of their leadership
than for less prototypical leaders. Across different methodologies, Giessner et al. (2009) found support for this prediction,
and showed that trust in leadership mediated the more positive responses to prototypical as compared with nonprototypical
leaders following failure.
Giessner and van Knippenberg (2008) further showed that this influence of leader group prototypicality is contingent on the
nature of the performance goal. Some goals are associated with a categorical difference between success and failure whereas
others are associated with more gradual differences (Brendl & Higgins, 1996). The latter goals leave more room for relatively
favorable interpretations of failure to reach goals than the former, and accordingly leader group prototypicality was expected
and found to only moderate the effect of failure (vs. success) for the latter type of goal. Giessner and van Knippenberg also established
the moderating role of social identification in this effect, thus more firmly establishing its roots in social identity.
Findings such as these regarding leaders' ability to maintain support for their leadership after poor performance are potentially
important because they speak to leaders' ability to pursue endeavors that inherently are associated with a higher risk of failure
such as radical innovations. They potentially also speak to a “darker” side of leadership endorsement, as they also point to situations
in which leaders continue to be supported even when a change in leadership might be more advisable. These, however, are issues for
future research to address.
Viewed from a slightly different angle, these findings for responses to leadership after failure also add to our understanding of
the role of trust in group prototypical leaders more generally. Originally, trust in group prototypical leaders was advanced as a
mechanism underlying the interactive effects of leader group prototypicality and leader group-oriented behavior – and by implication
the main effect of leader group prototypicality – on leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). The more
recent evidence reviewed here thus suggest that this role of trust extends to interactive effects of leader group prototypicality
and leader procedural fairness (i.e., provided these revolve around concerns with trustworthiness and not with social evaluation)
and leaders' association with failure. Trust in group prototypical leadership thus also seems to extend to trust in leader procedural
fairness (cf. van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008) and trust in leaders' ability to ensure performance outcomes important to the collective.
Interestingly, these distinctions seem to map unto the different aspects of trustworthiness distinguished in trust theory
(Mayer et al., 1995): benevolence (cf. trust in leader group-orientedness), integrity (cf. trust in leader fairness), and ability (cf.
trust in leaders after failure) — an issue I revisit later.

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1085
3.4. Leader–follower relationships
The social identity theory of leadership clearly champions an understanding of leadership as a group-based process. While this is a
perspective that resonates with analyses of charismatic and transformational leadership (Shamir et al., 1993; van Knippenberg et al.,
2004;cf.van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), there is also a perspective on leadership effectiveness that emphasizes an understanding of
leadership as a dyadic process unfolding in the interpersonal relationship between leader and follower. This leader–member
exchange (LMX) perspective puts the social exchange relationship between leader and follower center-stage and sees leadership
effectiveness as following from the quality of this exchange relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro, & Cogliser,
1999; van Gils, van Quaquebeke, & van Knippenberg, 2010). In the social exchange perspective, relationship quality is understood
as a combination of the value to each party of the “goods” exchanged in the relationship (e.g., effort, loyalty, friendship) and the
reciprocity in the exchange — benefits received should be repaid in kind (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).
There is good support for LMX theory's basic proposition that the quality of the social exchange relationships between leader
and follower is associated with outcomes that can be seen as indicative of leadership effectiveness (Gerstner & Day, 1997). The
question thus arises if and how these different perspectives on leadership may be aligned as an emphasis on shared identity as
compared with an emphasis on reciprocity in social exchange represent quite different psychological experiences of the leader–
follower relationship (cf. van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2006). Addressing this question, Hogg, Martin, Epitropaki, Mankad, Svensson,
and Weeden (2005) pointed to social identification (or social identity salience) as the key moderating variable here. They showed
that whether leadership with an interpersonal focus (cf. LMX) or leadership with a group-based focus (cf. the social identity analysis)
was more strongly associated with leadership effectiveness was contingent on identification. The higher follower social identification,
the more effective group-based leadership relative to interpersonal leadership.
Bringing leader group prototypicality into the equation here, in a conceptual analysis Sluss and Ashforth (2008) advanced the
proposition that leader group (i.e., organizational) prototypicality would moderate the extent to which the quality of the leader–
follower relationship would transfer to the follower's relationship with the organization (e.g., in terms of organizational identification;
cf. Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). Their basic argument is that the more the leader is seen to embody the organizational identity,
the more one's relationship with the leader is seen as indicative of one's relationship with the organization (cf. van Knippenberg,
van Dick & Tavares, 2007b). In an empirical follow-up Sluss, Ployhart, and Cobb (2010) provide support for this proposition by
showing that the relationship between follower identification with the leader and with the organization is contingent on leader
group (organizational) prototypicality. Although not framed as such, a study by Eisenberger et al. (2010) provides another test of
Sluss and Ashforth's (2008) proposition that leader group prototypicality moderates the relationship between the psychological
experience of the leader–follower relationship and psychological attachment to the organization. 2 Eisenberger et al. focused on
the relationship between LMX and organizational commitment, where positive leader–follower relationships can be expected
to be predictive of a positive attitude toward (i.e., commitment to) the organization. Consistent with Sluss and Ashforth's analysis,
they proposed and found that the positive relationship between LMX and commitment is stronger as the follower perceives the
leader to be more group prototypical.
Findings like these are particularly interesting because they lay the groundworks for an integrative reading of dyadic and group-based
perspectives on leadership in at least two ways. First, they suggest that social identification may be the key contingency determining the
extent to which leadership effectiveness is contingent on social identity processes or social exchange processes. Second, they hint at a
temporal dimension in the leadership process in which interpersonal leader–follower relationships may develop into more groupbased
leadership processes. Over time, leadership may build follower identification with the collective in part through their interpersonal
relationships with followers (cf. Sluss & Ashforth, 2007, 2008) and thus set the stage for a shift in leadership effectiveness from dyadic
leadership to group-based leadership, and more group prototypical leaders may be better positioned to establish this shift. This temporal
dimension is underexplored in the social identity analysis of leadership, however, and here lies a clear challenge for future research.
3.5. Leader self-perceived prototypicality
Given the consistent evidence for the positive effects of follower perceptions of leader group prototypicality on leadership effectiveness,
the question arises how leaders' self-perceived group prototypicality affects their actions. Theory and evidence support the
conclusion that more group prototypical leaders are more effective because they are seen to represent a shared social reality and
trusted to pursue the group's best interest. Does this also imply that self-perceived prototypicality motivates representing the
group in word and deed? Put differently, does a leader's perception that he or she is prototypical of the group (team, organization)
motivate the leader to think and act as followers expect the leader to do?
The limited work in leadership emergence from a social identity perspective provides circumstantial evidence that group
prototypicality may feed into leadership in that the positive relationship between group prototypicality and emergent leadership
(Fielding & Hogg, 1997; van Knippenberg et al., 2000) presumably reflects an influence of group prototypicality on the
individual's actions, but it does not speak to the question how leader self-perceived prototypicality more specifically impacts
2 Apparently unaware of the social identity analysis of leadership and the concept of leader group prototypicality, Eisenberger et al. (2010) proposed the label
of “supervisor organizational embodiment” for their measure of leader group prototypicality. As the concept of supervisor organizational embodiment is conceptually
redundant with the concept of leader group prototypicality, and group prototypicality not only has a longer history in leadership research (including strong
connections with the use of the concept of prototypicality in leadership categorization theory) but also a strong basis outside of leadership research (cf. Rosch,
1978; Turner et al., 1987), I suggest that we stick to leader group prototypicality.

1086 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
leadership. Leadership research has a long history in the study of the determinants of leader behavior or behavioral styles, but
this research almost exclusively emphasizes personality and individual differences as determinants of leadership (e.g., Judge,
Piccolo, & Kosalka, 2009; van Knippenberg, 2012). The study of the role of leader self-definition in shaping leader actions
is only just emerging (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009; Lord & Hall, 2005; Rus, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010; van Dick, Hirst,
Grojean, & Wieseke, 2007) and so far only two studies addressed the effects of leader self-perceived group prototypicality.
Giessner and van Knippenberg (2007, 2009) argued that self-perceived group prototypicality intrinsically motivates grouporiented
behavior, because self-definition as group prototypical implies ascribing group norms and interests to self. That is,
self-perceptions complement the leadership perceptions highlighted in the social identity theory of leadership. In support of
their analysis, they showed that group prototypical leaders were relatively group-oriented in allocation decisions (as opposed
to self-serving) irrespective of whether they were held accountable for their actions or not, whereas nonprototypical leaders
were more group-oriented when they were accountable than when they were not (i.e., accountability provided an extrinsic reason
to refrain from self-serving behavior). This suggests that group prototypicality indeed intrinsically motivates group-oriented behavior.
In addition, Giessner and van Knippenberg showed that group prototypical leaders' allocation decisions were more contingent on
group norms than those of nonprototypical leaders. This latter finding is consistent with the notion that self-perceived prototypicality
leads to an internalization of group norms that guide behavior.
These findings thus mirror and complement the main body of the social identity theory of leadership by showing that selfperceived
group prototypicality motivates the kind of attitudes and actions followers expect group prototypical leaders to display.
In a sense then, these findings can be said to show that followers are correct to trust group-prototypical leaders to represent
group norms and interest — at least provided that the leaders also see themselves as prototypical. In that sense, then, they add
to the evidence supporting the conclusion that group prototypicality is a leadership quality to seek in leaders. From the perspective
of leadership selection and development, the combined evidence from research in the social identity theory of leadership would thus
suggest searching for identity fit between leader and group, team, or organization (cf. Edwards, 2008), and cultivating leaders' selfperception
as a prototypical group member (e.g., through socialization processes and leadership development programs). Clearly,
future research is needed to validate these implications, but given the modest (if not disappointing) achievements of the dominant
personality perspective in the determinants of leadership (Judge et al., 2009; van Knippenberg, 2012), it would seem it may pay
off to be open to alternative perspectives.
3.6. Creativity and innovation
Creativity and innovation are of crucial importance to a sustainable competitive advantage for organizations (Zhou & Shalley,
2008) and an important leadership role therefore is to foster employee creativity and innovation (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Group
prototypicality as a factor in leadership effectiveness raises an interesting issue in this respect, because at first blush there may
be an intuitive tension between the notion of leadership embodying group norms and creativity and innovation. This intuition
seems based on the misconception that social identities, and group norms embedded in those identities, are static and unchanging,
and that therefore group norms enforce the status quo and “business as usual”. The end result then would be that group norms
and an emphasis on social identity would discourage creativity, innovation, and change. This is a misconception for two reasons.
Addressing these helps explain why leader group prototypicality may actually be conducive to creativity and innovation, and to the
related issue of collective (e.g., organizational) change (i.e., collective change arguably is a specific form of innovation — innovation
of the collective itself).
First, social identity and the group norms embedded in the identity may actually embrace and emphasize creativity and innovation.
Indeed, some teams and organizations are in a sense defined by their focus on creativity and innovation, such as those active
in Research & Development. To the extent that a focus on creativity and innovation is seen as part of collective identity, group
norms would in fact encourage its pursuit and group prototypical leadership would be well-positioned to motivate creativity and
innovation (Hirst et al., 2009). Second, social identities are not static and unchanging, but develop and change over time just like
individual identities. What people identifying with a group or organization seek is not unchanging identity, but continuity of
identity — the sense of a clear connection between past, present, and future identity (Rousseau, 1998; Sani, 2008; cf. Shamir
et al., 1993). Where it concerns innovation as change to the collective, people can be quite accepting and supportive of the pursuit
of such change/innovation as long as they have a clear sense of continuity of identity. Leadership of change may thus overcome
resistance to change by instilling a sense of continuity of identity, and group prototypical leaders as embodiment of the shared
identity are particularly well-positioned to do so (Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Marques, & Hutchison, 2008; van Knippenberg
et al., 2008).
The intrinsic motivation to pursue creativity and innovation is an important ingredient in realizing creative and innovative
outcomes (Amabile, 1988). Leadership that is able to intrinsically motivate the pursuit of such creative outcomes thus is off to
a good start, and group prototypicality may help leaders achieve this. There is more to leadership of creativity and innovation,
however. The pursuit of creative and innovative outcomes inherently is a relatively uncertain and risky endeavor in the sense
that it more or less by definition is a nonroutine activity and holds the risk of failure. This renders people's efficacy in pursuit
of such creative goals (i.e., the belief in the capability to achieve these goals) a salient influence in the motivation to pursue creative
outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, 2002) and leadership that is able to build such (creative) efficacy is more successful in motivating
creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007) and presumably innovation. Approaching this issue from a social identity perspective, Hirst
et al. (2009) argued that, contingent on follower social identification, the creativity of members of R&D teams would be positively
influenced by inspirational motivation, an aspect of transformational leadership that is associated with building follower efficacy

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1087
(Bass, 1985; cf. Shamir et al., 1993). Moreover, they expected and found that this influence is stronger with higher leader group
prototypicality, because prototypicality would add to the persuasiveness of leader inspirational motivation (i.e., lend credibility to
the leaders' ambitions for the collective; cf. van Knippenberg et al., 1994).
With only a single study addressing the relationship between leader group prototypicality and follower creativity, it clearly
would be premature to jump to bold conclusions. Even so, it would seem important to note that both theory and the available
evidence (corroborated by evidence for the positive relationship between leader group prototypicality and support for organizational
change; Pierro et al., 2007; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005a; van Knippenberg et al., 2008) point to a positive
role for leader group prototypicality in creativity and innovation. Perhaps contrary to some people's intuition, then, it would seem
worthwhile to further develop the social identity analysis of leadership of creativity and innovation. An interesting lead in this
respect may be recent research by Pierro et al. (2009) suggesting that promotion focus, a concern with achieving positive outcomes
(Higgins, 1997), renders followers more sensitive to leader group prototypicality. Promotion focus is also positively related
to creativity (Friedman & Förster, 2001) and may thus be a particularly interesting factor to explore in a social identity analysis of
leadership of creativity and innovation (cf. Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Stam, van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010).
4. Conclusions and future directions
In reviewing the evidence for the social identity theory of leadership a first and obvious conclusion is that the theory's basic
propositions receive strong and consistent support across methodologies, indicators of leadership effectiveness, and countries.
It does not seem overstated to conclude that especially through the test of hypotheses across experimental and survey methods
support for the theory is as strong as for any theory in the field and stronger and more consistent than for most, even when the
number of studies on leader group prototypicality is much more modest than on in particular transformational leadership and
LMX. In that sense, while the social identity theory of leadership may have been somewhat of a “new kid on the block” in leadership
research at the time of its 2003 statement (albeit with strong and deep roots in the study of social influence; Abrams & Hogg, 1990;
Turner et al., 1987; van Knippenberg, 2000a), the 2011 state of the science would seem to establish it as a mature and well-supported
theoretical perspective.
A key theme in the social identity analysis of leadership is follower trust in the leader. While this was already present in the
2003 statement of the theory, more recent research in prototypicality and fairness and in prototypicality and the romance of leadership
suggest that it may be highly worthwhile to develop this analysis further as these different research foci seem to emphasize
different aspects of trust in leadership. In an integrative review of the trust literature Mayer et al. (1995) distinguished three aspects
of perceived trustworthiness as precursors to trust in the relationship between two parties (e.g., leader and followers): benevolence
(good intentions toward the other party), integrity (adherence to a set of (moral) principles acceptable to the other
party), and ability (the perception that the other party is able to realize its intentions). Looking at the role of trust in analyses of
leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness, we may note that originally the emphasis was on benevolence — trust
in the leader's group-orientedness. More recently, however, these analysis seem to have expanded the consideration to issues of
integrity and ability too. Group prototypicality as a factor engendering trust in leader fairness might be understood in terms of benevolence,
but arguably also in terms of integrity, and group prototypicality-induced trust as a moderator of the romance of leadership
seems to have clear linkages with ability.
The linkage with benevolence would follow most directly from the social identity analysis, which understands trust in leader
group-orientedness to reflect the perception that a group prototypical leader also embodies (the pursuit of) group interests. Integrity
could however also be argued to imply here to the extent that shared social identity incorporates shared (moral) principles and values
— as the group-value model of fairness suggests it would (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The linkage with trustworthiness in terms of ability
would in that sense probably be most contingent on the nature of the group — specifically, on the extent that ability is part of the
group prototype. In many organizational contexts, this is arguably the case in that the group identity would somehow incorporate
what the group does and presumably also its ability at doing this, but especially for non-organizational groups it need not be. Exploring
these issues in future research through more specific measurement of the three aspects of trustworthiness may yield more insights
in this issue. It may for instance help us determine under which conditions leader group prototypicality would engender
perceptions of trustworthiness-ability and whether this aspect of trustworthiness is the one that underlies the moderating effect
on the romance of leadership.
Setting aside the dimensionality of trustworthiness, we may note that key themes in the further development of the social
identity analysis of leadership have been trust and uncertainty. Leader group prototypicality is linked to trust in leadership and
the ability to reduce uncertainty by representing shared social reality, and this expresses itself in a number of distinct but related
developments in the social identity analysis of leadership. These revolve around dispositional and situational influences on the
desire to reduce uncertainty that function as contingencies of the effects of leader group prototypicality, around the role of leader
group prototypicality in leadership of change, the romance of leadership, and leader fairness, and around the influence of leader
self-perceived prototypicality on leader actions. In combination, these findings suggest that group prototypicality not only elicits
trust in leaders' good intentions and motivation to represent group norms, but also motivates such intentions and actions in
leaders. Moreover, these findings provide initial support for the proposition that group prototypicality positions leaders to
more effectively lead people in more uncertain enterprises with inherently higher risk of failure such an organizational change
and innovation.
Research in leader fairness also adds a complication here, however, in suggesting that leader group prototypicality may not
only speak to the issues of trustworthiness and uncertainty that are tied in with leader fairness (Lind, 2001), but also to concern

1088 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
with social standing that are also tied in with leader fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2000). The current state of the science thus holds a
clear invitation to more fully investigate this presumed role of leader group prototypicality in influencing followers' perceptions
of their social standing with the leader and within the group. Other developments are in a more embryonic state and concern the
role of leader group prototypicality in the (effects of the) interpersonal relationship between leader and follower, in leadership of
creativity and innovation, and as contingent on promotion focus. Developments in these areas ask for more research much more
than for bold conclusions.
In taking stock of the state of the science in a field, one may also note what has not been investigated — what are perhaps surprising
omissions. In this respect, I would highlight two issues: leaders' active role in conveying an image of group prototypicality, and explicit
attention to the role of leader group prototypicality in team leadership.
While research in leader self-perceived group prototypicality shows that the positive effects of leader group prototypicality
are not exclusively contingent on follower perceptions, clearly followers' perception of the leader as embodying the shared social
identity are a crucial element in the effects of leader group prototypicality. Leaders may thus benefit from clearly conveying and
establishing their group prototypicality (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), and qualitative analyses by Reicher and Hopkins (2003)
suggest that highly successful (political) leaders can be quite skilled in achieving just that. By the nature of their analysis, Reicher
and Hopkins only describe the leader actions involved in their claims to group prototypicality in an illustrative, case-based manner, and
systematic quantitative research on these processes is lacking. The powerful message of Reicher and Hopkins's analysis is, however,
that group prototypicality is not just a “passive” quality of leaders but something that leaders can actively claim and construe to the
benefit of their effectiveness as a leader. To complement the current evidence in support of the social identity theory of leadership,
then, it would seem highly worthwhile to more systematically investigate how leaders may achieve this active construal of their
image as group prototypical.
While the social identity analysis of leadership recognizes the group-based nature of leadership probably more than any other
analysis of leadership where it concerns the psychological (i.e., self-definitional) implications of leadership, it is largely agnostic
when it comes to the interactive processes required of work groups and teams to produce joint outcomes. This in fact is true for
leadership research far more generally and has sparked a growing attention for what is explicitly team leadership — leadership
targeted at fostering the interactive team processes required for the successful delivery of high-quality team products (Day,
Gronn, & Salas, 2004). While leadership research at large seems to prioritize the role of leadership in motivating and inspiring
(collective) performance, research in team leadership is concerned much more specifically with the interactive team processes
required for collaborative work and with the team cognition driving these processes (cf. Hackman & Wageman, 2005; Hannah,
Lord, & Pearce, 2011). Work groups and teams typically are the primary unit of identification in organizations (van Knippenberg &
van Schie, 2000) and it would thus stand to reason that leader group prototypicality would also be a factor in successfully fulfilling
this team leadership role. As always, however, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and to more fully speak to the group-based
nature of leadership it would seem important that the social identity analysis of leadership also addresses the role of social identity
processes in team leadership as more narrowly defined in the team leadership literature.
In conclusion then, the social identity theory of leadership provides a well-supported basis for the study of leadership effectiveness
in a variety of areas, and has the clear potential to advance a more integrative understanding of leadership that also
includes cross-linkages with other leadership perspectives (e.g., charismatic and transformational leadership, leader fairness,
LMX). The combination of this strong conceptual and empirical basis and this integrative potential make further development
of the social identity analysis of leadership a particularly promising direction for leadership research. The present review hopes
to have provided and structured the building blocks for these further developments.
References
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195–228.
Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., Marques, J. M., & Hutchison, P. (2008). Innovation credit: When can leaders oppose their group's norms? Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 95, 662–678.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice communication criteria of fairness. In R. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in
organizations. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brendl, C. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Principles of judging valence: What makes events positive or negative? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, Vol. 28. (pp. 95–160)San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Choi, Y., & Mai-Dalton, R. R. (1998). On the leadership function of self-sacrifice. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 475–501.
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007). Leader group prototypicality and job satisfaction: The moderating role of job stress and team identification.
Group Dynamics, 11, 165–175.
Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Employees work effort as a function of leader group prototypicality: The moderating role of team
identification. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 58, 117–124.
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of role ambiguity. British Journal of
Management, 21, 411–421.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational
justice research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 12,
637–647.

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1089
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., & Menon, S. T. (2000). Charismatic leadership and follower effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 747–767.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880.
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development. New York, NY: Routledge.
De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2002). How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 858–866.
De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 95, 1121–1133.
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
611–628.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Edwards, J. R. (2008). Person-environment fit in organizations: An assessment of theoretical progress. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 167–230.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T. E., Gonzales-Morales, M. G., et al. (2010). Leader-member exchange and affective organizational
commitment: The contribution of supervisor's organizational embodiment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1085–1103.
Ensher, E. A., & Murphy, S. E. (1997). Effects of race, gender, perceived similarity, and contact on mentor relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 460–481.
Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group Dynamics, 1, 39–51.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–1013.
Gartzia, L. (2010). From “think male” to “think androgynous”. Implications for gender equality and organizational functioning in XXI century organizations. UPV/EHU:
Editorial Service.
Gerstner, C. R., & Day, D. V. (1997). Meta-analytic review of leader–member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
82, 827–844.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2007, April). Leading FOR the team: Situational determinants of team-oriented leader behavior. Paper presented at the 2007
Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). “License to fail”: Goal definition, leader group prototypicality, and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 14–35.
Giessner, S. R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009, June). When does a leader show fair behavior? Influences of group prototypicality and the social context. Paper presented at
the Erasmus Leadership Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2009). License to fail?: How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions
of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 434–451.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). When and how team leaders matter. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 37–74.
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1087–1100.
Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational
Psychology Review, 1, 32–53.
Hannah, S. T., Lord, R. G., & Pearce, C. L. (2011). Leadership and collective requisite complexity. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 104–127.
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1469–1479.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. The American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Hirst, G., van Dick, R., & van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
963–982.
Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology,
11, 223–255.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.
Hogg, M. A. (2003). Social identity. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 462–479). New York: Guilford.
Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 39. (pp. 69–126)San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Hogg, M. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 1–52.
Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (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, 1248–1263.
Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005). Effective leadership in salient groups: Revisiting leader–member exchange
theory from the perspective of the social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 991–1004.
Hogg, M. A., Fielding, K. S., Johnson, D., Masser, B., Russell, E., & Svensson, A. (2006). Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups: A social
identity analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 335–350.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncracy credit. Psychological Review, 65, 117–127.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–339.
Janson, A., Levy, L., Sitkin, S. B., & Lind, E. A. (2008). Fairness and other leadership heuristics: A four-nation study. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17, 251–272.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
765–780.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones?: A re-examination of consideration, initiating structure, and leadership effectiveness. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark side of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The Leadership
Quarterly, 20, 855–875.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. The American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.
Kalshoven, K., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Ethical leader behavior and leader effectiveness: The role of prototypicality and trust. International Journal of Leadership
Studies, 5, 102–120.
Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review,
32, 500–528.
Koper, G., van Knippenberg, D., Bouhuijs, F., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. (1993). Procedural fairness and self-esteem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23,
313–325.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relations. In J. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in
organizational behavior. Lexington, MA: New Lexington.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Lipponen, J., Koivista, S., & Olkkonen, M. -E. (2005). Procedural justice and status judgements: The moderating role of leader ingroup prototypicality. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16, 517–528.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

1090 D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
Lord, R., & Hall, R. (2003). Identity, leadership categorization, and leadership schema. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity
processes in groups and organizations (pp. 48–64). London: Sage.
Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 591–615.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Lord, R. G., Binning, J. F., Rush, M. C., & Thomas, J. C. (1978). The effect of performance cues and leader behavior on questionnaire ratings of leadership behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 27–39.
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343–378.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.
Moriano León, J. A., Topa Cantisano, G., & Lévy Mangin, J. -P. (2009). Leadership in nonprofit organizations of Nicaragua and El Salvador: A study from the social
identity theory. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 667–676.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role
of need for cognitive closure. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 503–516.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., Bonaiuto, M., van Knippenberg, D., & Kruglanski, A. 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, 27–40.
Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Followers' satisfaction from working with group-prototypic leaders: Promotion focus as moderator. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 45, 1105–1110.
Platow, M. J., Hoar, S., Reid, S. A., Harley, K., & Morrison, D. (1997). Endorsement of distributively fair and unfair leaders in interpersonal and intergroup situations.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 465–494.
Platow, M. J., & van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive
intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1508–1519.
Platow, M. J., Haslam, S. A., Foddy, M., & Grace, D. M. (2003). Leadership as the outcome of self-categorization processes. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg
(Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 34–47). London: Sage.
Platow, M. J., van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S. A., van Knippenberg, B., & Spears, R. (2006). A special gift we bestow on you for being representative of us: Considering
leader charisma from a self-categorization perspective. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 303–320.
Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N. (2003). On the science of the art of leadership. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in
groups and organizations (pp. 197–209). London: Sage.
Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of
social reality. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547–568.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2003). Status characteristics and leadership. In D. van Knippenberg, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and
organizations (pp. 65–78). London: Sage.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch, & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 217–233.
Rupp, D. E. (2011). An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1, 72–94.
Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader self-definition and leader self-serving behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 509–529.
Sakata, K., Fujimoto, K., & Kohguchi, H. (2005). Leadership and group membership: Effects of group prototypicality on influences of a leader. The Japanese Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 109–121.
Sani, F. (2008). Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives. New York: Psychology Press.
Scandura, T., & Graen, G. B. (1984). Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the effects of leadership interventions. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69, 428–436.
Schriesheim, C. A., & Cogliser, C. C. (2009). Construct validation in leadership research: Explication and illustration. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 725–736.
Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (1999). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research: A comprehensive review of theory, measurement and data-analytic
practices. The Leadership Quarterly, 10, 63–113.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shin, J. S., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a
moderator. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of Management Review, 32, 9–32.
Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2008). How relational and organizational identification converge: Processes and conditions. Organization Science, 19, 807–823.
Sluss, D. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Cobb, M. G. (2010, August). Converging newcomer's relational and collective identification: Prototypicality as moderator. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Montreal.
Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in explaining the effectiveness of vision
statements. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 457–468.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
1137–1148.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Ullrich, J., Christ, O., & van Dick, R. (2009). Substitutes for procedural fairness: Prototypical leaders are endorsed whether they are fair or not. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 235–244.
van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M. W., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader and follower organizational identification and implications for follower
attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 133–150.
van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2008). How leader prototypicality affects followers' status: The role of procedural fairness. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 17, 226–250.
van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Procedural fairness and endorsement of prototypical leaders: Leader benevolence or follower control? Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46, 85–96.
van Gils, S., van Quaquebeke, N., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader–member
exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 333–363.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000a). Group norms, prototypicality, and persuasion. In D. J. Terry, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of
norms and group membership (pp. 157–170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000b). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology, 49, 357–371.
van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Leadership: A person-in-situation perspective. In K. Deaux, & M. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology
(pp. 673–700). New York: Oxford University Press.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In R. M. Kramer, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior, Vol. 25. (pp. 243–295)Amsterdam: Elsevier.
van Knippenberg, D., & Sleebos, E. (2006). Organizational identification versus organizational commitment: Self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 571–584.

D. van Knippenberg / The Leadership Quarterly 22 (2011) 1078–1091
1091
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005, May). The effects of leader prototypicality on organizational-level performance measures. Paper presented at
the XII European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. C. M. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73,
137–147.
van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N., & Wilke, H. (1994). In-group prototypicality and persuasion: Determinants of heuristic and systematic message processing. The
British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 289–300.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & van Dijk, E. (2000). Who takes the lead in risky decision making? Effects of group members' individual riskiness and
prototypicality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 213–234.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,
825–856.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & De Cremer, D. (2005, May). Extending the social identity model of leadership: The interactive effects of leader prototypicality
and leader procedural fairness. Paper presented at the XII European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, Istanbul.
van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, B. (2007). Leadership and fairness: The state of the art. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
16, 113–140.
van Knippenberg, D., van Dick, R., & Tavares, S. (2007). Social identity and social exchange: Identification, support, and withdrawal from the job. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 37, 457–477.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Bobbio, A. (2008). Leaders as agents of continuity: Self continuity and resistance to collective change. In F. Sani (Ed.),
Self-continuity: Individual and collective perspectives (pp. 175–186). New York: Psychology Press.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in the need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Handbook of organizational creativity. New York: Erlbaum.