Social Identity Theory in leadership

Social Identity Theory (SIT) is one framework that helps us understand how humans interact and relate to each other. In a previous article, we examined the basics of SIT and how it affects our perceptions of ourselves and others. As a short refresher, we draw our understanding of who we are based on the groups we identify with, and judge others based on the groups we believe they are affiliated with. By identifying as a certain in-group member, e.g. someone who does Crossfit, we assume certain characteristics about ourselves (I am fit, I am healthy, I look after myself) and about others who are out-group members (slovenly, ill-disciplined, unhealthy).

SIT has been applied to leadership theory as well. Over the years, academics have identified many implications for understanding how SIT affects leadership dynamics within groups and organisations. This article will look at some of the ways SIT applies to leadership, and discuss two examples of how contemporary leaders have used SIT to better influence others.

SIT applications in leadership

Leader as In-Group Representative: Leaders often represent the archetypal in-group member. They are seen as the embodiment of the group’s values, goals, and aspirations. Their leadership role strengthens the social identity of the group and contributes to a sense of cohesion and belonging. Leaders can leverage their position to reinforce positive social identities and promote a sense of pride and loyalty among group members. If you have ever been proud to work in an organisation because of your boss, you’ve seen this effect in action.

Leadership and In-Group Favouritism: Social Identity Theory suggests that individuals tend to show favouritism towards their in-group. This bias can influence leadership behaviours, as leaders may be more inclined to allocate resources, opportunities, and rewards to in-group members. It is important for leaders to be aware of this bias and strive for fairness, equity, and inclusivity in their decision-making processes. An example of this in action could be a coach picking a representative team, who unintentionally favours members of her own club.

Leadership and Group Identity Formation: Leaders contribute to the formation and development of group identities. Through their actions, communication, and vision, leaders shape the social identity of the group and influence how members perceive themselves in relation to the larger organisation or community. You may notice leaders, especially senior corporate leaders or politicians, using the collective ‘we’ when they address groups. This is designed to make the in-group clear, and to include the audience in their group to better gain influence over otherwise disparate individuals.

Leadership and Social Identity-Based Motivation: SIT suggests that individuals derive motivation from their group memberships and the desire to maintain a positive social identity. Leaders can tap into this motivation by aligning goals and tasks with the group's identity, emphasizing shared values and collective achievements. By fostering a sense of identity and purpose, leaders can inspire and mobilise their team towards common objectives. The classic Australian trait of not wanting to let your mates down has been used for decades to motivate and inspire people towards achieving certain goals, from winning at sports to cleaning up rubbish.

Leadership and Reducing Out-Group Bias: SIT recognizes the tendency for individuals to perceive out-groups as less favourable or homogenous. Leaders can actively work to reduce out-group bias by encouraging intergroup contact, promoting diversity and inclusion, and challenging stereotypes and prejudices. They can create a culture of respect, appreciation for differences, and collaboration across groups. If your workplace has advocacy forums, you’ve seen this in action – giving people a voice to break through barriers that are often subconsciously constructed around different in-groups (e.g. managers in a workplace).

These are just some of the ways in which SIT can be practically applied in leadership. By understanding the theory, leaders of all types are empowered to identify where SIT is affecting their teams, and make changes if needed. By knowing how people can be drawn together and inspired, organisations can be motivated and influenced to achieve more, together. Conversely, where teams are underperforming or struggling with their cohesion, an external review may identify a lack of in-group identity that can be addressed efficiently and effectively.

SIT examples

Nelson Mandela

Of course, it’s easy to describe a theory and make it sound like the cure-all for the management woes of the contemporary workplace. SIT is one tool—albeit a powerful one—amongst many, and there are some examples we can use to demonstrate how it has been applied in the past. It’s unlikely that these leaders consciously used SIT to improve their influence, but it’s effectiveness can be seen and, armed with the knowledge that it can be powerful, we can choose to apply it ourselves.

The first example of an individual who leveraged social identity to be a better leader is Nelson Mandela, the former President of South Africa. Mandela utilised social identity to lead the movement against apartheid, and to unite a divided nation in its wake.

During the apartheid era, South Africa was deeply divided along racial lines, with a white minority government implementing oppressive policies that marginalised and discriminated against the Black majority. Mandela, as a prominent leader of the African National Congress (ANC), recognised the power of social identity (the concept, not the academic SIT) in mobilising and inspiring his fellow black South Africans.

Mandela tapped into the shared experiences, values, and aspirations of black South Africans to build a strong sense of social identity among his followers and emphasised a collective Black identity rooted in the struggle for justice, equality, and freedom. Mandela himself embodied this identity, and spent 27 years in prison for his anti-apartheid activism.

By leveraging social identity, Mandela was able to galvanize support, mobilise large numbers of people, and sustain the anti-apartheid movement both before and after the policy was abandoned. He rallied his followers around the vision of a united, non-racial South Africa where everyone would be treated equally and enjoy fundamental rights and opportunities.

Mandela's leadership was characterized by inclusivity, forgiveness, and reconciliation. He recognised the importance of bridging divides and creating a shared national identity that transcended racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. Despite his long imprisonment, Mandela reached out to white South Africans, appealing to their sense of shared humanity and the common goal of building a democratic and prosperous nation.

His ability to unite diverse groups under a collective identity played a crucial role in the successful transition from apartheid to democracy in South Africa. Mandela's social identity-based leadership not only brought about significant political change but also fostered healing, reconciliation, and the building of a new social fabric for the nation. By appealing to shared values, experiences, and aspirations, leaders like Mandela can create a sense of belonging and purpose, leading to positive change and transformation within societies.

Almost every leadership theorist can use Mandela to make their point. His leadership and inspiration are legendary, and can be applied to lots of leadership theories, even the Great Man theory that has been largely debunked. While he remains a good example of how SIT can be a powerful leadership tool, it’s important that we look closer to home, and to a less obvious—but no less important—example of the theory in action.

Eddie Mabo

The second example of a leader who effectively applied SIT is Eddie Mabo, an Indigenous Australian activist who played a pivotal role in the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land rights.

Mabo, a Torres Strait Islander, challenged the concept of "terra nullius" (land belonging to no one) in Australian law, which denied the existence of Indigenous land rights. He sought to reclaim the social identity and land rights of Indigenous Australians, who had experienced dispossession and marginalisation. This is almost a perfect example of an out-group; indigenous Australians had been classified as basically not existing as a collective people under colonial Australian law. You can’t get further out-group than that.

Mabo's leadership centred on asserting the rights and cultural identity of Indigenous Australians. He highlighted the deep connection Indigenous peoples had with their ancestral lands, their cultural heritage, and the significance of land in their social, spiritual, and economic lives. He drew the picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders as a group, one with identifiable characteristics that until then had been overlooked, ignored, or suppressed.

Through the Mabo v Queensland case, which reached the High Court of Australia in 1992, Mabo challenged the legal fiction of terra nullius. The court's decision recognised the existence of native title, acknowledging Indigenous Australians' rights to their traditional lands and establishing a framework for land rights claims.

Mabo's leadership was instrumental in raising awareness and mobilising support for Indigenous land rights. He engaged in public advocacy, highlighting the historical injustices faced by Indigenous communities and promoting reconciliation and recognition of their social identity and rights. He lowered the barriers between in-groups of white Australians and the dispossessed original inhabitants, and did so without violence or vitriol.

By reclaiming and asserting the social identity of Indigenous Australians as the traditional custodians of the land, Mabo empowered and inspired Indigenous communities across Australia. His leadership contributed to a significant shift in public opinion, leading to greater recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and fostering a national dialogue on reconciliation.

Mabo's legacy continues to shape Australia's understanding of Indigenous rights and land ownership. His leadership exemplifies the power of social identity in mobilising and empowering marginalized communities to assert their rights, challenge unjust systems, and seek justice and equality. Generations of Australians now know of the Mabo decision – even if they know little about Eddie Mabo – as the right thing to do.

CONCLUSION

SIT is a leadership tool for anyone. You don’t need to be a world leader like Mandela, or an inspirational change-bringer like Eddie Mabo. All of us, in our daily lives can take the opportunity to influence our groups for the better. By working to represent a group, to build motivation through collective cohesion, and to identify and reduce out-group friction, we can all leverage SIT as leaders within our groups. 

What are you a leader of?

What are you a leader of? 

So, you’re a leader. Good for you! Leadership comes in many shapes and forms, and for a person to identify themselves as a leader is to admit that you have influence in the world. But, the big question is; over whom do you have influence? 

It seems pretty obvious that to be a leader, there needs to be two conditions that are met. Firstly, there needs to be a group of people (or at the very least, a person). And secondly, that this group is influenced by someone – that someone is the leader. We know from research that groups are groups because they identify as such; in other words, someone is a member of a collective based on their belief that they belong to said collective. A case in point would be the fans of a netball team. Simply by identifying as a fan, one is a member of the group. That doesn’t mean that everyone in the group accepts that person as one of them, but importantly, it does mean that if someone identifies as a member of a group, they are likely to adhere to the group’s rules. So, if there’s a recognised leader of that group, then people who believe they are part of the group will tend to be influenced by the group’s recognised leader. 

People within a group will look to other group members to try and establish what group membership entails. People don’t look at other groups to figure out how they should act, or who they should be influenced by. As an example, the principal of a school is the leader of the staff (and hopefully the students). People who identify as belonging to the group that makes up the staff will associate the individual who is principal as the leader of their group. But when that individual is in a different group – let’s say that they are a member of a cover band in their spare time – they aren’t the leader of the band by default. The band members don’t identify as school staff, so there’s no reason for the principal to have influence based on other leadership positions. To be a leader then, one must be part of the group. And this is the key idea here – leaders exist within certain groups. They are identified as leaders as a result of being part of that group, and not because of something they do outside it. Only within an agreed group is the individual a leader – not in general. 

When we say we’re a leader then, we need to be specific. Included in the definition must be the group that we lead. To say ‘I am a leader’ is incomplete; there needs to be a group involved. It’s far more accurate to say ‘I lead within my workplace as a supervisor’ or ‘I am a leader because I am captain of my club hockey team.’ 

The understanding that we are leaders only within certain groups – that is, only in certain contexts – is hugely important. It should ground and guide leaders in their group interactions. Fundamentally, they need to be active members of the group, and understand that they are reflective of group norms. 

As we saw before, leaders need to be part of the group; and this includes not being above it. If a leader believes themselves to be above the group by virtue of position or influence, they will eventually find out they are party correct – they won’t be part of the group for long. And you cannot lead a group from the outside. Groups can be influenced only by people that the group accepts belong within the identified group. Only by being part of a group – and having the group believe they are part of the group – can an individual wield influence.  

If you’re a leader, you’re a member of a group. It behoves you then to act like it, and to put the group’s needs ahead of your own. Failure to do so will see you ejected from the group, and stripped of any influence. This ejection might not be formal, but if the group mentally decides you’re out, your influence is over. Even when people are placed in positions of power and authority, failure to appreciate the requirement to be part of the group will result in exclusion from the group, and an inability to influence the group. You may coerce, but you will not lead. The idea that management are a separate entity within an organisation is as old as management itself – they often don’t integrate themselves as part of the group. This often means that change is met with resistance as people believe that changes are being imposed by non-group members. Far better to be an accepted influencer within the group, and bring them on a journey, than to impose your will and force compliance. 

For groups to be influenced, they must be led by someone from within the group. If you believe you are a leader, you believe you are a member of a group, and that implies the requirement to put collective needs ahead of your own. Leading from the inside is the only way to gain willing and cohesive influence. This article started by asking if you’re a leader, over whom do you have influence – but this is in fact the wrong question for leaders to ask. The question is neither ‘are you a leader?’, nor ‘whom do you lead?’ but rather how do you show your group that you are one of them, and exercise your influence through the group – and not over them. 

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.

What makes a good leader?

Was Hitler a good leader? 

I’ve heard this question over and over again during my career. Or variations thereof, all trying to explain the difference between the effect that a person can have on a group versus the use of the word ‘good’. 

Spoiler alert: Hitler was not a good leader. 

I can hear now the counter-arguments that this statement has provoked. If he wasn’t a good leader, then how did he influence so many people towards his goals? How could he sway the collective thoughts of an entire nation if he was such a bad leader? 

This is the whole point to the question of what makes a good leader. It’s not just about their ability to influence a group. The word good has two meanings: it can mean effective at achieving an outcome or it can mean the opposite of bad. When it comes to being a good leader though, we need it to mean both. 

Hitler was effective at influence. He was the recognised holder of a position of power within an organised group. By these narrow strictures then, he was a ‘good leader.’ But – and it’s a huge ‘but’ here – he was an evil, evil person. He remains the archetypical personification of evil for almost everyone alive, reviled as few have ever been before. Influential, yes. But a good leader? No. 

For a leader to be good, they must not just be effective at influence, they need also to be decent human beings. It’s important that we think this way, because words define our thoughts, and if we allow ourselves to call evil people good leaders, we mentally allow the shortcut of decreasing the disgust we should hold for those who use power and influence for unethical ends, or in unethical ways. 

Our brains are lazy. Given the option between thinking hard or applying a quick heuristic – a mental shortcut - our neurons take the shortcut every time. When we associate evil people with being good leaders, we let our brains take the easy leap from good leader to good person. Rather than really thinking through what we’re actually saying – a thoroughly evil person had some redeeming features – we let it slide because it’s easier than actually kicking up the processing power. And, in doing so, we gradually let fade the horror we should feel at the thought that someone might ever be in a position again to influence so many people towards evil ends. 

What makes a good leader then? A decent person who acts in a manner that seeks to influence a group towards decent ends in a decent way. I use the word decent deliberately, rather than the word good. Good is too abstract, too easy to drop into the semantics and undercut. Decent on the other hand, implies someone who makes mistakes, but gets it right more often than not. Who tries to steer the ship according to some principles that not everyone will agree with, but that a reasonably objective observer would agree are justifiable. 

We should stop asking what makes a good leader. If the person motivating, influencing, directing a group is decent, if they aim to achieve ends that are generally agreed as being worthwhile, and they do so in a manner that can be agreed does not seek to exploit their followers, then they are a leader. If they are doing so in a manner that seeks to achieve immoral ends, or using ways that a reasonable person could not justify as being decent, then let’s not call them leaders at all. Let’s change the language we use for these people, and take the power away from the position they hold. We see this in other areas of life; king hits are now called coward punches, terrorists are called extremists, and so forth. We know that words have power; let’s apply that to our leaders. 

So, Hitler wasn’t a good leader. He was a bastard with influence. Pol Pot? He was a bastard with influence. There are hundreds of examples of these bastards throughout history. Some of them weren’t men, but regardless of gender, they were true bastards. I’d argue that there are plenty of examples of bastards with influence right now across the world; using people as pawns in their power games, seeking only to advance their own agendas, and shaping others to believe in them despite caring nothing for the group or its members. 

A leader is someone who is a part of the group, not only by virtue of position, but by having internalised the group’s norms and working to uphold those as they guide and influence the group towards ends, and through the use of ways, that will ultimately benefit the group without causing undue harm to others as a result. We don’t need to say they are ‘good’; we can train our brains to associate the word leader with a concept of doing good, and let it stay lazy. 

Only decent humans can hope to be good leaders. Others may influence a group, but they aren’t leaders, just bastards with some form of influence. Leaders are necessarily acting in a manner that puts others on a footing equal with their own, something bastards with power never do. We teach our kids from an early age that sharing is good, selfishness is bad; so too with influence and power. Decent people will share their power and influence, while bastards will always hold it closely and never share. 

Hitler was not a good leader. He wasn’t a leader at all. He might have had followers, but that alone is a poor measurement of leadership. In any language, by any measure, Hitler was a bastard. Let’s use the words we have to shape the world we desire, and don’t associate the bastards we sometimes see in power with the decent humans that we call leaders. 

If you like this post, please consider contributing to the Collective Wisdom page. It’s free and will help us - and a future leader - immensely. Thank you, we appreciate what you do.