This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hogg, M. A. Articles by Weeden, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hogg, M. A. Articles by Weeden, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effective Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-Member Exchange Theory From the Perspective of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership

University of Queensland, m.hogg{at}psy.uq.edu.au

Robin Martin

University of Queensland

Olga Epitropaki

Athens Laboratory of Business Administration

Aditi Mankad

University of Queensland

Alicia Svensson

University of Queensland

Karen Weeden

University of Queensland

Two studies compared leader-member exchange (LMX) theory and the social identity theory of leadership. Study 1 surveyed 439 employees of organizations in Wales, measuring work group salience, leader-member relations, and perceived leadership effectiveness. Study 2 surveyed 128 members of organizations in India, measuring identification not salience and also individualism/collectivism. Both studies provided good support for social identity predictions. Depersonalized leader-member relations were associated with greater leadership effectiveness among high-than low-salient groups (Study 1) and among high than low identifiers (Study 2). Personalized leadership effectiveness was less affected by salience (Study 1) and unaffected by identification (Study 2). Low-salience groups preferred personalized leadership more than did high-salience groups (Study 1). Low identifiers showed no preference but high identifiers preferred depersonalized leadership (Study 2). In Study 2, collectivists did not prefer depersonalized as opposed to personalized leadership, whereas individualists did, probably because collectivists focus more on the relational self.

Key Words: leadership • social identity • LMX • group processes • self

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 7, 991-1004 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167204273098


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. E. Ashforth, S. H. Harrison, and K. G. Corley Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions Journal of Management, June 1, 2008; 34(3): 325 - 374. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. van Breukelen, B. Schyns, and P. Le Blanc Leader-Member Exchange Theory and Research: Accomplishments and Future Challenges Leadership, August 1, 2006; 2(3): 295 - 316. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Schyns Are Group Consensus in Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) and Shared Work Values Related to Organizational Outcomes? Small Group Research, February 1, 2006; 37(1): 20 - 35. [Abstract] [PDF]