Who Will Lead Who Will Follow

WHO WILL LEAD AND WHO WILL FOLLOW?
A SOCIAL PROCESS OF LEADERSHIP IDENTITY

CONSTRUCTION IN ORGANIZATIONS
Author(s): D. SCOTT DeRUE and SUSAN J. ASHFORD
Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (October 2010), pp. 627-647
Published by: Academy of Management
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29765008
Accessed: 19-10-2017 13:21 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Academy of Management Review
This content downloaded from 130.239.20.133 on Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:21:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
? Academy of Management Review
2010, Vol. 35, No. 4, 627-647.
WHO WILL LEAD AND WHO WILL FOLLOW? A

SOCIAL PROCESS OF LEADERSHIP IDENTITY
CONSTRUCTION IN ORGANIZATIONS
D. SCOTT DeRUE
SUSAN J. ASHFORD
University of Michigan
We propose that a leadership identity is coconstructed in organizations when indi?

viduals claim and grant leader and follower identities in their social interactions.
Through this claiming-granting process, individuals internalize an identity as leader
or follower, and those identities become relationally recognized through reciprocal
role adoption and collectively endorsed within the organizational context. We specify
the dynamic nature of this process, antecedents to claiming and granting, and an
agenda for research on leadership identity and development.
Scholars have begun to question traditional people can enter into irrespective of their formal
conceptualizations that position leadership as role or position within an organization. Simi?
top-down, hierarchical, and equivalent to formal larly, recent research on team leadership con?
supervisory roles in organizations (Ancona & ceptualizes it as a shared property of the group
Backman, 2008; Bedeian & Hunt, 2006). While such that all members of the group, regardless
holding a formal position within an institution? of their formal role or position, participate in the
alized hierarchical structure clearly conveys leadership process (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone,
some meaning with respect to leadership, this 2007; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010; Pearce &
hierarchical perspective does not explain why Conger, 2003).
some supervisors are not seen as leaders (Bede? If leadership is not simply prescribed because
ian & Hunt, 2006) or why some individuals are of one's position in an institutionalized hierar?
seen as leaders despite not holding "leader? chy, then a fundamental question that remains
like" positions (Charan, Drotter, & Noel, 2000; to be answered is how leadership and leader
Spreitzer & Quinn, 2001). follower relationships develop in organizations.
Recently, theorists have begun to conceptual? What are the relational and social processes
ize leadership as a broader, mutual influence involved in coming to see oneself, and being
process independent of any formal role or hier? seen by others, as a leader or a follower? This
archical structure and diffused among the mem? article presents a theory explaining the devel?
bers of any given social system (Bedeian & Hunt, opment of a leadership relationship that is com?
2006; Collinson, 2005; Gemmill & Oakley, 1992;posed of reciprocal and mutually reinforcing
Gronn, 2002; Parry, 1998; Uhl-Bien, Marion, & identities as leaders and followers, is endorsed
McKelvey, 2007). Although references to this dis? and reinforced within a broader organizational
tributed form of leadership date back to the context, and is dynamic over time.
work of Selznick (1957), this perspective is be? By illuminating the interplay of leader and
coming more prominent in contemporary lead? follower identities in the development of a lead?
ership theories. For example, Quinn (1996) ar? ership relationship, our theory makes several
gues that leadership is a state of being that noteworthy contributions to the leadership liter?
ature. Prior research on "leader" as a personal
identity (Day & Harrison, 2007; DeRue, Ashford, &
We thank Blake Ashforth, Natalie Cotton, Jane Dutton, Cotton, 2009) informs but does not fully explain
Ned Wellman, and the participants at the 2008 Exploring the leadership identity construction process.
Positive Identities Conference and the May Meaning Meet?
Our theory makes clear that leader and follower
ing for their helpful comments and suggestions in the devel?
opment of this paper. We also thank associate editor Jeff identities are not only cognitions that reside
LePine and the three anonymous reviewers for an extremely within an individual's self-concept (Day & Har?
generative review process. rison, 2007; Day & Lance, 2004; DeRue et al., 2009);
627
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright
holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
628 Academy of Management Review October
they are also socially constructed and inher? Developing insights into the leadership iden?
ently related (e.g., granting one person a leader tity construction process is important since indi?
identity frequently instantiates a follower iden? viduals' identities as leaders and followers are
tity for others). By equating "leaders" with those thought to be significant drivers of their subse?
holding supervisory positions and "followers" quent thought, affect, motivation, and action
with those reporting to others in an organiza? (Day & Harrison, 2007; Gardner & Avolio, 1998;
tion, the leadership literature and the emerging Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Indeed, prior re?
literature on followership both underplay the search suggests that seeing oneself as a leader
socially constructed and reciprocal relationship not only enhances one's motivation to lead
between leaders and followers (Collinson, 2006;
(Chan & Drasgow, 2001; Kark & van Dijk, 2007)
Hollander, 1993; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, and one's engagement in the leadership process
2008), whereas our theory foregrounds this con?
sideration. (Kempster, 2006) but also promotes the seeking
out of leadership responsibilities and opportu?
Our theorizing also reflects a dynamism that
nities to develop leadership skills (Day, Harri?
is absent from much of the existing literature.
son, & Halpin, 2009). Additionally, understand?
Leader identities are generally portrayed as in?
trapersonal, one-directional, and static. But if ing the mutual construction of leaders' and
leadership is a mutual influence process among followers' respective roles and identities will
individuals, then social interaction among those help us explain and predict the relational out?
individuals and various contextual factors can comes associated with leader-follower relation?
cause leader and follower identities to shift over ships. For example, a strong leadership identity
time and across situations. Most research on implies that there is clarity in the leader
leadership and identity acknowledges that follower relationship and individuals' identities
identities develop over time but then goes on to as leader and follower. When this clarity exists,
theorize about a leader identity that, once inter? there is greater acceptance of the right of the
nalized, becomes a static and enduring feature person constructed as leader to exert influence
of the person (DeRue et al., 2009; Komives, Owen, over the person constructed as follower. When
Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005) or about this clarity is missing, we expect increased con?
leadership relationships (e.g., leader-member flict and tension in the relationship (Collinson,
exchange; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) that are 2005). In this sense, the construction of a leader?
static and of a particular nature. A static identity ship identity and the respective identities as
is also presumed in the emerging literature on leader and follower are inputs into the quality of
followership (e.g., Collinson, 2006; Kellerman, leader-follower relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
2008; Van Vugt et al., 2008), where the focus is on 1995).
personal attributes that make individuals effec? We present our theory as follows. First, we
tive followers. In contrast, we propose that define the concept of leadership identity con?
leader and follower identities can shift among
struction and highlight how our theory offers
group members through a social construction new insights for the broader identity literature.
process.
We then describe an identity work process of
By emphasizing the dynamic nature of leader
claiming and granting whereby individuals co
and follower identities, we also bring into focus
create reciprocal and mutually reinforcing iden?
the antecedents that shape the construction of a
tities as leaders and followers and, through this
leadership identity. Existing theories of how
people come to be seen as leaders focus nar? process, develop a leader-follower relationship.
rowly on the cognitive aspects of the process. From there we elaborate on the relationship be?
For example, implicit theories of leadership and tween claiming and granting by specifying the
perceptions of group prototypicality can cause conditions under which claims are reciprocated
people to see others as leaders (DeRue et al., by grants and grants are reciprocated by claims.
2009; Lord, 1985; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). We conclude with a discussion of the anteced?
We extend prior theory by offering a broader and ents that prompt individuals to claim and grant
more integrative framework for understanding the both leader and follower identities, as well as
antecedents to the construction of a leadership an agenda for future research that would extend
identity and leader-follower relationships. our theory in new directions.
2010 DeRue and Ashford 629
LEADERSHIP IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION on a reciprocal follower identity). This relational

recognition can be, but is not necessarily, syn?
Identity involves the meaning attached to the
onymous with the organizational hierarchy and
self (Gecas, 1982). Any particular identity can be
individuals' positions in that hierarchy.
conceptualized along three levels of self
construal: individual, relational, and collective Collective endorsement is about being seen
within the broader social environment as part of
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Because leadership
a particular social group?for example, leaders
involves multiple individuals engaged in a pro?
or followers (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). We expect
cess of interpersonal and mutual influence that
that the more an individual is collectively en?
is ultimately embedded within some collective dorsed as part of the group "leaders" or the
(Hollander, 1978; Parry, 1998), it is necessary to group "followers," the more those related iden?
integrate across these three levels to fully cap? tities will be reinforced and the stronger and
ture the process of constructing a leadership more stable that particular identity construction
identity. Therefore, in contrast to the existing will be. This collective endorsement might come
literature, we propose a conception of leader? from other individuals (e.g., an upper-level man?
ship identity that invokes all three levels of self ager addressing one member of the group as the
construal. Specifically, a leadership identity leader) or the social context more broadly. For
comprises three elements: individual internal example, an individual might not perceive him
ization, relational recognition, and collective en? or herself as possessing the attributes of a
dorsement.
leader (follower) or as being in a leader-like
Individual internalization is a state where in?
(follower-like) position, but the social context
dividuals come to incorporate the identity of within which that individual works might col?
leader or follower as part of their self-concept lectively endorse him or her as a leader (fol?
(DeRue et al., 2009; Gecas, 1982). It involves "the lower) and thereby initiate the leadership iden?
creation of new aspects of the self that relate to tity construction process.
the leader (or follower) role (e.g., growth in the By conceptualizing leadership identity across
leader sub-identity)" (Hall, 2004: 157). Prior the? all three levels of self-construal, we are suggest?
ory suggests that the designation of these per? ing that leadership development and the con?
sonal attributes to the self is not simply a cog? struction of a leadership identity are about the
nitive, intraindividual assessment but, rather, is construction of a relationship. As Kouzes and
embedded in specific contexts where an identity Posner note, "Leadership is a reciprocal rela?
is asserted and ascertained in the course of so?
tionship. ... any discussion of leadership must
cial interaction (DeRue et al., 2009; Snow & attend to the dynamics of this relationship"
Anderson, 1987). (2003: 1). This recognition is in contrast to much
This embeddedness suggests a second, more of the existing literature on leadership that fo?
relational aspect of leadership identity con? cuses on an individual and the static sense of
struction?relational recognition. Individuals' being a leader but misses how leadership
identities are often tied to various roles (Stryker, comes to be and how it changes over time (Col
1980; Stryker & Burke, 2000), and certain roles are linson, 2005). As a result, current theory offers
reciprocally related (e.g., parent/child or leader/ little insight into how individuals influence
follower) such that individuals in the situation each other to collectively construct their respec?
mutually recognize the role relationship (Ash tive identities as leaders and followers and to
forth, 2001; Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). In this sense, construct the leader-follower relationship. This
leadership "is not something the leader pos? article moves the leadership field away from a
sesses" (Hollander, 1993: 29); rather, it expresses static and hierarchical conception of leadership
a recognized relationship among individuals and toward a more dynamic, social, and rela?
(Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Relational identity pro? tional conception of the leadership development
cesses suggest that, in addition to individuals' process.
internalizing a leader or follower identity, the Although our primary contribution is to leader?
leadership identity will be stronger to the extent ship theory, this article makes several contribu?
that it is relationally recognized through the tions to theories of identity and identity construc?
adoption of reciprocal role identities as leader tion. First, the tripartite identity construction
and follower (i.e., for leaders, when others take process that we describe serves as a framework
for how scholars might integrate personal, rela? model the impact of prior interactions or the
tional, and collective theories of identity. Con? nature of the actual claims and grants that occur
sidering the calls for more integrative theorizing during the identity construction process. Our
in the identity literature and leadership litera? theory illustrates the limitations of such as?
ture (Avolio, 2007; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; sumptions. For example, we specify how the na?
Sluss & Ashforth, 2007), our theory showing how ture of claims and grants themselves, along
these different levels of self-construal are com? with the prior history among individuals, can
plementary and how they help explain the con? facilitate or impair the fluid and reciprocal na?
struction of one's identity is noteworthy. ture of the identity construction process. By chal?
Second, leadership as an identity may differ lenging some of the implicit assumptions em?
from other more commonly studied identities bedded in the identity literature, we hope that
(e.g., race, gender, or specific role identities). this article surfaces new insights about the
Leadership is ambiguous, with no clear defini? identity construction process.
tion or meaning across people (Bass & Bass,
2008; Pfeffer, 1977). What it takes to be a leader or
THE WORK OF CONSTRUCTING A
follower, as well as who is a leader or follower LEADERSHIP IDENTITY
in any given social context, is ambiguous, dy?
namic, and contextual. These attributes make If identities are inherently social (Mead, 1934)
the leadership identity high in what Hoang and and both leader and follower identities are
Gimeno (2010) term identity complexity and available to anyone (Day et al., 2009; Kempster,
strongly suggest a role for social processes in its 2006; Van Vugt, 2006), then the process by which
creation. While the idea of social interactionism certain people become socially constructed as
is not new to the identity literature (Goffman, leaders, and other people as followers, becomes
1959; Mead, 1934), the identity literature is only particularly important to understand. We root
beginning to explain when social interaction is our description of this process in what is called
more or less important for identity construction "identity work" in the literature (Pratt, Rock
(Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010). Our theory suggests mann, & Kaufmann, 2006; Snow & Anderson,
that the nature of the identity itself (in terms of 1987). Based on social interactionism (Blumer,
its ambiguity or other attributes) impacts the 1969; Goffman, 1959), identity work refers to
process by which that identity is constructed. "people being engaged in forming, repairing,
Social mutual influence processes may be most maintaining, strengthening or revising" their
important for the construction of more ambigu? identities (Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003: 1165).
ous identities, such as leadership. In this sense, identity work is seen as an indi?
Third, the identity literature focuses primarily vidual undertaking aimed at creating, present?
on how individuals come to see themselves vis? ing, and sustaining particular identities. For ex?
a-vis their self-concept. Our theory emphasizes ample, research has examined the identity work
that it is as important to understand the social used to sustain a positive image (Ashforth &
processes by which others attribute identities to Kreiner, 1999; Snow & Anderson, 1987), balance
an individual as it is the identities that an indi? different identities (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep,
vidual attributes to him or herself. In addition, 2006), and customize identities to fit particular
our theory explains not only how an individual environments (Pratt et al., 2006).
comes to see him or herself in a particular way, In this article we offer a broader and more
but it also focuses on how a leadership relation? social conception of identity work. In particular,
ship is socially constructed and, ultimately, how we draw from theories of symbolic interaction?
patterns of influence form and evolve among ism (Goffman, 1959; Mead, 1934) to propose that
individuals. In this sense, the target of our the? identity work is undertaken both by an individ?
orizing is different from that in the identity liter? ual projecting a particular image and by others
ature and prior treatments of leader identity mirroring back and reinforcing (or not) that im?
(e.g., Day & Harrison, 2007; DeRue et al., 2009). age as a legitimate identity (Hatch & Schultz,
Finally, social interactionist perspectives on 2002). We refer to this broader, multiparty pro?
identity construction implicitly assume that so? cess as identity construction and find reflections
cial interaction is free, fluid, and without inter? of it in Hatch and Schultz's (2002) examination of
ruption. These perspectives generally do not the iterative and reciprocal process of identity
construction at the organizational level and in leader or follower identity in a particular

Bartel and Dutton's (2001) qualitative description context.
of how temporary workers engage in behaviors In contrast, granting refers to the actions that
aimed at establishing themselves as legitimate a person takes to bestow a leader or follower
members of the organization. In this process identity onto another person. Grants can come
other members of the organization meet these from individuals actively involved in work with
moves and acts with affirming or disaffirming the focal person (who then take on follower
responses, and through this "reciprocal" identity roles) or from people who simply notice and
work, the ambiguity of organizational member? endorse a person as a leader (e.g., a colleague
ship is resolved. from another department). Our focus is on the
As presented in Figure lf we propose identityformer set of individuals. For example, grants
work in which individuals "claim" an identity might include publicly referring to someone as
and others affirm or "grant" that identity as the your group's leader or, in the case of a follower
underlying process by which leader and fol? identity, explicitly indicating that a person
lower identities become socially constructed should act in accordance with the direction of
and form the basis of leader-follower relation? another. As shown in Figure 1, individuals can
ships. Claiming refers to the actions people take grant a leader or follower identity by agreeing
to assert their identity as either a leader or fol? to a claimer's assertion or by bestowing the
lower. For example, consider Lebron James' identity onto a person prior to any initial claim
statement to the press upon joining his NBA (i.e., the dashed box at the top of Figure 1). Thus,
basketball team, the Cleveland Cavaliers, as a granting can occur in response to other individ?
nineteen-year-old rookie: "I'm a leader. I am the uals' claiming behavior and/or it can be the mo?
leader of this team" (InsideHoops.com, 2004). Or tivation for future claiming behavior. It is
consider people in organizations who say, "I'm through the interplay of these claims and grants
just not the leader type." Both statements are that leader and follower identities are, as Sven
verbal assertions that represent claims to a ingsson and Alvesson state, "frequently in
FIGURE 1
Leadership Identity Construction Process
Penan A PoieonB
! leader ! Identity work
Individual intexnalaation
r Clcdm leader/
J Claim followei/
*\ Grant leader
J identity
I
Grant follower
identity
Grant leader/
Relational recognition Claim follower
I
Claim leader/
identity
Grant follower
identity
Collective endorsement Grant leader/
i
Claim follower
Claim leader/ identity
Grant follower
identity
\ LEADER 1
Clarity and acceptance of

leader-follower relationship
movement" (2003; 1165). This recursive property ccri person claims a leader or follower identity,
of the process is consistent with recent work on this stimulates other people in the social envi?
the follower's role in leadership (Howell & ronment to consider seeing that focal person in
Shamir, 2005). accordance with that particular identity. They
Drawing from the existing literature on iden? communicate their acceptance of this percep?
tity construction in leadership (DeRue et al., tion by granting that particular identity to the
2009, Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Luhrmann & Eberl, focal person through their words or actions (di?
2007) and other contexts (Alvesson, 1994; Bartel & rectly or indirectly). Although this granting of
Dutton, 2001; Pratt et al., 2006; Snow & Anderson, the identity may not always occur immediately
1987), we theorize that claiming and granting and may even require several claims before the
tactics vary on two basic dimensions: verbal/ identity is granted, the relational recognition of
nonverbal and direct/indirect. Direct verbal acts the claim through a reinforcing grant is essen?
aimed at claiming a leader identity might in? tial to the identity construction process. For ex?
clude a person making statements that he or she ample, if a person claims leadership in a setting
is a leader or statements consistent with being but others do not reinforce that claim with sup?
leader-like, while direct verbal granting acts portive grants, the three aspects of leadership
might include referring to another person as a identity construction are insufficient for a leader
leader. Similar direct verbal acts can also be follower relationship to emerge. The leadership
used to claim a follower identity, such as stating identity will not be fully internalized by the in?
that you are simply following the direction of dividual, it will not be recognized in relational
another person or that you expect to follow the ties between individuals, and it will not be en?
lead of others in a particular situation. In con? dorsed in the broader organization. In this case
trast, people can also claim or grant a leader the leadership identity and leader-follower rela?
identity via direct nonverbal acts, such as ma? tionship do not become part of a "working con?
nipulating physical artifacts associated with sensus" defining the situation (Goffman, 1959).
leadership or followership (Gallo, 2006). In this In contrast, if a person claims a follower identity
case a person might claim leadership by dis? (e.g., states explicitly or communicates through
playing particular identity cues (e.g., looking the actions that he or she expects someone else to
part; Swann, 1990) or by sitting at the head of a lead) and other people reinforce the claim with a
meeting table. In the case of followership, a supportive grant (e.g., do not look to this person
person might claim a follower identity by choos? for guidance, direction, or vision for the task),
ing to speak in a meeting only when called on. then that person's follower identity becomes es?
Similarly, a person might grant leadership by tablished in that particular context.
offering the head of a meeting table to another These reciprocal claims and grants promote
person, or grant followership by not including the individual internalization of leader and fol?
that person in an important (direction-setting) lower identities and their relational recognition
conversation. in group members' roles and relationships (de?
Claiming and granting leader and follower picted by the boxes on the right and left in Fig?
identities can also be more indirect. Indirect ure 1). As others in the organization come to
claiming tactics might include the invoking of recognize and understand this emerging rela?
relational ties that communicate and highlight tional structure and pattern of influence, the
closeness with recognized authorities or other leadership identity becomes collectively en?
leaders. Examples include dropping the name of dorsed in the broader organizational context. A
an influential organizational leader (in the case leader-follower relationship is more or less es?
of claiming) or acknowledging a person's rela? tablished (i.e., is clearer and mutually accepted)
tionship with other notable leaders in the orga? to the degree that these three conditions are
nization (in the case of granting). In the case of met. As situations evolve, leader and follower
followership, we often see groups in which indi? identities can shift among individuals through
viduals actively refrain from taking initiative this same reciprocal process of claiming and
within the group. This form of inaction is an granting, thereby creating a revised structure
indirect claim of followership. for the leader-follower relationship. It is through
Figure 1 depicts the claiming and granting this iterative and generative claiming and
process as iterative and generative. When a fo granting process that the leader-follower rela
tionship becomes a social reality in organiza? a group) and that differences in this conception
tions and a leadership identity is constructed. have important implications for how the process
unfolds. Second, a deviation-amplifying pattern
Proposition 1: The construction of a
presumes that the claims and grants exchanged
leadership identity occurs when
are of a sufficient quality to be perceived accu?
claims and grants of leader and fol?
lower identities are endorsed with re? rately and have influence on others. Yet both
claims and grants can vary in their clarity and
ciprocal grants and claims.
visibility to others, and this variation will likely
affect the process of constructing leader
follower identities. Finally, a description of the
The Reciprocal Nature of Claiming and
claiming-granting process as deviation amplify?
Granting a Leadership Identity
ing leaves unstated the role of history in its
Proposition 1 suggests that a leadership iden? unfolding, but it is likely that a prior history of
tity is constructed when claiming and granting reinforcing claims and grants between individ?
mutually reinforce each other. Over time, this uals will carry forward and affect how likely
pattern forms "deviation-amplifying" loops (Ma individuals are to reciprocate the claims and
such, 1985; Weick, 1979), in which a deviation in grants of others. To more carefully delineate the
one variable (e.g., more granting behavior) leadership identity construction process, we
leads to a similar deviation in another variable now consider the implications of relaxing these
(e.g., more claiming behavior), which, in turn, three assumptions.
further amplifies deviation in the first variable. Leadership-structure Schemas. Consistent
As the process unfolds, the cyclical nature of the with the leadership literature in general (Bede
claiming-granting process is thought to result in ian & Hunt, 2006), we propose that individuals
either positive or negative spirals (DeRue et al., range from conceptualizing leadership as a pro?
2009). A positive spiral occurs because grants of cess that can be shared and mutually enacted
a particular identity, leader or follower, convey among group members (e.g., Carson et al., 2007;
information about how others in that social en? Gemmill & Oakley, 1992) to one that is hierar?
vironment see the focal individual with respect chically structured such that there is only one
to that identity. Thus, when individuals receive leader in a group and leader and follower iden?
grants supporting their claims of a leader or tities are mutually exclusive. References to a
follower identity, they are inclined to respond single-leader assumption date back to Bion's
with more frequent and stronger claims for that (1961) psychoanalytic work on groups, and its
identity. In contrast, a negative spiral occurs predominance in the management literature
when claiming or granting behaviors are not has been traced by Gemmill and Oakley (1992).
positively reinforced (e.g., claims are not rein? Similar to the zero-sum/positive-sum assump?
forced by grants), and, as a result, these behav? tions that shape negotiation behavior (Pruitt &
iors are less likely to be repeated in the future Rubin, 1986; Thompson & Hastie, 1990), we ex?
(Ferster & Skinner, 1957). The response to fewer pect individual differences in leadership
grants of a leader identity will be that the focal structure Schemas to shape when claims are
individual engages in fewer or weaker claiming reciprocated with grants and when grants are
behaviors, which, in turn, will yield fewer sub? reciprocated with claims.
sequent grants. When a person holds a hierarchical leader?
Implicit in this discussion of positive and neg? ship-structure schema, that person is more
ative spirals and in our description of the lead? likely to conceive of leadership as zero sum.
ership identity construction process are several Therefore, a grant of leadership to another indi?
assumptions about the reciprocal nature of vidual implies the claiming of a follower iden?
claims and grants. First, a deviation-amplifying tity. Similarly, a claim of leader identity is likely
pattern presumes that there is convergence in to be accompanied by a reciprocal grant of a
individuals' beliefs regarding how leadership is follower identity. We posit that the degree to
and should be structured in groups. However, which people converge around a common lead?
we propose that individuals' conceptions of ership-structure schema will influence the re?
leadership range from hierarchical (only one ciprocal nature of the claiming-granting pro?
leader in a group) to shared (multiple leaders in cess. For example, in Figure 2a we depict a
Academy of Management Review October
FIGURE 2
Impact of Leadership-Structure Schemas on Claiming and Granting
(a) Successful construction: Reinforced hierarchical (c) Failed construction: Unreinforced claim
leadership-structure Schemas
Grant follower Denies person B's claim ?// ?
-> Claim leader ~ Claim leader -
1
Person A Person B Person A Person B
(hierarchical) (hierarchical) (hierarchical) (shared)
Grant leader/Claim follower

Claim follower/Grant leader
-Claim leader <
(b) Successful construction:

(d) Failed Reinforced shared
construction: Unreinforced grant
leadership-structure Schemas
Grant leader/Claim follower ' Grant leader/Claim
' follower
T Claim leader' I-Claim leader <
Person A Person B Person A Person B

(shared) (shared) (hierarchical) (shared)
Grant leader/Claim follower Grant leader/Claim foll

- Claim leader < -> Does not claim leader
claiming-granting cycleleader
wherecan emerge in
individuals a gro
ex?
perience convergence around a hierarchical
likely grant another's clai
accedeIn
leadership-structure schema. tothis
his scenario
or her leade
a
claim of leadership that follower
is then granted
identity,will
butbeat th
accompanied by reciprocal leadership for
claims and themselves
grants of an
a follower identity. This supportive
occurs because
grantsthe in?other
from
dividuals involved see leadership as reserved
ure 2b, individuals can claim
for a single individual, identity
and so once
whileaalso
claim of on
taking
leader identity has been granted,
relation toitothers.
is consistent
In such sit
with respect to individuals
with the individuals' leadership-structure Sche?
mas to follow that grant identities, but in a and
with the claiming way tha
exchange
granting of a reciprocal follower of leadership
identity. A com? and
mon understanding andconstantly
clarity about
beingwho is a
renegotiate
uations.
leader and who is a follower in In such
this contexts th
particular
situation results, and theleader and follower
individuals identiti
experience
little tension over leadership.
result,Individuals
few identity inter?
conflicts
leadership
nalize their identity as leader will emerge.
or follower, mutu?
ally recognize their roles Theand relationships
reciprocal dynamicsas o
leaders and followers,struction
and, as aprocess
result,become
the
broader organizational individuals
context begins
have to en?
different
dorse the leader-followerSchemas. For example, cons
relationship.
hierarchical
Similarly, when individuals leadership-str
experience con?
vergence around a shared sonleadership-structure
A in Figure 2c) who cla
schema, a more dynamic inyet
an interaction with a pe
still well-defined
leadership-structure
leadership identity emerges. Given group mem? schem
bers' convergent beliefs that grant
B may more the
than one clai
initial
tinue to claim leadership for him or herself. With been granted (Figures 2c and 2d), (a)
Person A conceiving leadership as zero sum, he leaders with hierarchical leadership
or she will likely resist Person B's claim ("Why structure Schemas will not grant the
doesn't he just follow my lead?") and continue to continued claims of a leader identity
grant only a follower identity to Person B. In by people with shared leadership
turn, we would expect confusion and conflict structure Schemas and (b) leaders with
over leader and follower identities to emerge, shared leadership-structure Schemas
thereby resulting in less clarity around the lead? will continue to grant a leader iden?
ership identity. Alternatively, as shown in Fig? tity to individuals with hierarchical
ure 2d, if Person B holds a shared leadership leadership-structure Schemas who
structure schema and claims a leader identity, have discontinued their claims of a
Person A's reaction may also be confusing. Per? leader identity.
son A might grant the leader identity; comfort?
Visibility, clarity, and credibility. To sustain
ably claim a follower identity, reflecting his or
the reciprocal nature of the leadership identity
her hierarchical leadership-structure schema;
construction process, the claims and grants
and never initiate any subsequent claims for a
must be of sufficient quality. The literature on
leader identity. In this case Person B may be
social information processing suggests that so?
puzzled by the lack of subsequent initiative and
cial information (e.g., claims and grants) influ?
leadership exhibited by Person A, leading to
ences human judgment, thought, and action
identity-based conflict in the development of a
when the information is clear and easy to un?
leader-follower relationship. In general, diver?
derstand (Daft & Lengel, 1984; Petty & Cacioppo,
gence in leadership-structure Schemas will bring
1986), the saliency and visibility of the informa?
about less individual internalization, relational
tion are high (Fiske, Kenny, & Taylor, 1982), and
recognition, and collective endorsement of the information is credible (Chaiken & Ma?
leader and follower identities and, as a result,
will lead to less stable and ill-defined leader heswaran, 1994; Fisher, Ilgen, & Hoyer, 1979).
Extending this perspective to the leadership
follower relationships.
identity construction process, we propose that
Proposition 2: When there is conver? claims and grants of a leader or follower iden?
gence in hierarchical leadership tity are more likely to promote reciprocal grants
structure schemast once an initial and claims when they are clear, credible, and
claim of leadership is granted to an visible within the broader social context.
individual a clear leadership identity For example, consider an individual who is
is constructed based on a mutual under? elected to be the designated leader of a group in
standing that granting a leader identity a public election process during a meeting. This
to one implies the claiming of a fol? grant of a leader identity is clear, visible, and
lower identity by others (Figure 2a). credible. In this case credibility results because
the grant is representative of the group within
Proposition 3: When there is conver?
which the leader identity is being constructed,
gence in shared leadership-structure
Schemas, leader and follower identi? but credibility could also be high if the grant
ties flow back and forth within the had come from an expert or highly respected
group member.
relationship based on a mutual under?
Contrast this example with a situation in
standing that granting a leader or fol?
which an inexperienced group member pri?
lower identity to one individual does
vately suggests to another individual in the
not preclude the possibility that the
group that he or she is really good at setting an
identity will be claimed by and
agenda for the group and motivating the group
granted to others (Figure 2b).
to accomplish its goals. Is setting an agenda for
Proposition 4: When there is diver? and motivating the group an aspect of leader?
gence in leadership-structure Sche? ship? Is this group member a credible reflection
mas, the leadership identity construc? of the group's opinion or even skilled enough to
tion process will break down such that make this judgment? In contrast to the first ex?
after an initial claim of leadership has ample, this grant of leader identity is much less
visible to other group members, may be unclear engage in behaviors to maintain consistency
in its meaning and intention, and is less credi? and symmetry in those relationships over time
ble. As a result, the focal individual will be more (Gergen, 1968; Sampson, 1963, 1985). In this
likely to respond with his or her own reciprocal sense, a history of social interaction creates
claim of a leader identity in the first example both an expectation for and a consistent pattern
than the second. of behavior that influences future social interac?
Clear claims and grants create transparency tion and behavior.
as to how individuals see themselves and how Drawing from this literature and recent theo?
they are viewed within the social context. In rizing on the role of personal history in leader?
addition, highly visible grants of a leader or ship (Shamir, Dayan-Horesh, & Adler, 2005), we
follower identity should reduce the image risk propose that a prior history of reciprocal and
associated with claiming that particular iden? reinforcing claims and grants between people
tity (because everyone saw the grant) and, in will carry forward and affect those individuals'
addition, likely increase the felt pressure to future claims and grants of leader and follower
comply with a reciprocal claim of that identity. identities?especially when the situational con?
Such claims and grants, though, can be difficult text is relatively stable over time. The effect of
in organizations. Consider, for example, a group history can be vicarious or direct. A person may
that is connected primarily through virtual have a reputation as a leader that carries over
means. Lacking media richness (Daft & Lengel, into a new situation, and even though people
1984), claims and grants made in this context have never worked with this individual before,
can easily be misunderstood by others. his or her reputation will serve as a vicarious
We propose that clarity, visibility, and credi? mechanism for increasing the likelihood that
bility all enhance the likelihood that claims of a claims will be reciprocated with grants and
leader or follower identity will be reciprocated grants with claims. The direct effect of history
with supportive grants and that grants of a occurs when an individual has granted a fol?
leader or follower identity will be reciprocated lower identity to another person previously and,
with supportive claims. as a result, is more inclined to grant that person
a follower identity in the future (especially if
Proposition 5: The greater the clarity, that person were to first claim a follower iden?
visibility, and credibility of claims
tity). Similarly, if a person has claimed a leader
and grants, the more likely those identity in the past and been granted that iden?
claims and grants will be reinforced
tity by others, it is likely this person will claim a
via reciprocal grants and claims. leader identity again in the future. In fact, as the
History of claims and grants. According to so? history of claims and grants between people
ciological theories of role enactment, the way in develops over time, we expect the reinforcing
which people have enacted their roles in rela? nature of these claims and grants to become
tion to others in the past strongly influences how more habituated and mindless (Langer, Blank, &
they will enact their roles and behave toward Chanowitz, 1978). As the automaticity of the
others in the present and future (Turner, 1978). In leadership identity construction process in?
addition, empirical evidence from social and ap? creases, a pattern of claiming and granting be?
plied psychology shows that prior behavior in? havior that is reciprocal and mutually reinforc?
fluences future behavior (Ouellette & Wood, ing will emerge, leading to a more coherent and
1998) and that these behavioral response pat? enduring leader-follower relationship.
terns can be conscious or unconscious (Bargh,
Proposition 6: A prior history of recip?
1989; Wegner & Bargh, 1998). In fact, as long as
the situation and context do not differ dramati? rocal and reinforcing claims and
grants between individuals will carry
cally, prior behavior can lead individuals to de? forward and increase the likelihood
velop habitual responses that get enacted in that current claims and grants will be
future situations with minimal thought and ef?
reciprocated.
fort (Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Proctor & Dutta,
1993). Similarly, in the identity literature schol? Thus far, we have delineated an identity work
ars have noted that people establish relation? process explaining how leadership relation?
ships between themselves and others and then ships get constructed through reciprocal and
mutually reinforcing claims and grants. We Second, each of these factors plays an impor?
have also specified several mechanisms that tant role in the broader leadership literature,
facilitate or impair the reciprocal nature of the especially given the emphasis in prior research
claiming-granting process. We now turn our at? on cognitive, behavioral, and social constructiv
tention to predicting and explaining when indi? ist accounts of leadership (Chen & Meindl, 1991;
viduals will initiate a claim or grant of leader Sjostrand, Sandberg, & Tyrstrup, 2001). However,
and follower identities. until now, scholars have not fully articulated the
process by which these factors enable leader?
ship relationships and identities to develop
When Will People Claim and Grant Leader or
Follower Identities? (Day, Zaccaro, & Halpin, 2004). By focusing on
these antecedents, we situate our theory in the
We provide a general framework for identify? broader nomonological network of leadership
ing the antecedents that we believe will be es? research, while also extending prior research by
pecially important predictors of claiming and specifying how these factors shape the develop?
granting. In particular, we focus on (1) implicit ment of leader-follower relationships.
theories of leadership that refer to individuals' Implicit theories of leadership. By the time
beliefs about what makes someone an effective people begin working in organizations, they
leader, (2) the motivational risks and rewards have developed varying assumptions and be?
associated with claiming or granting leader and liefs that form an implicit theory about what
follower identities, and (3) the institutional leaders and followers "look like" and how lead?
structures that can impose leader and follower ership unfolds in groups (DeRue et al., 2009;
identities in group settings. This framework is Lord, 1985; Lord & Alliger, 1985; Schyns & Meindl,
not intended to be exhaustive; rather, we iden? 2005). We propose that these implicit theories of
tify general categories of antecedents to illus? leadership and followership influence whether
trate how the origins of claiming and granting people claim a leader or follower identity for
span from individuals' internal belief systems to themselves and/or grant a leader or follower
the organizational context within which the identity to others.
leadership identity is being constructed. We Prior research suggests that individuals at?
chose to focus on these particular antecedents tribute leadership to others depending on how
for two important reasons. well they correspond to or match the perceivers'
First, the predominant theories of identity de? implicit theory and that this cognitive process
velopment and maintenance highlight the im? can be conscious or unconscious (Lord, 1985;
portance of each of these antecedents. For ex? Lord & Maher, 1991; Schyns & Meindl, 2005). The
ample, self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, existing literature also suggests that under con?
Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains how ditions of high social identification with a
one's implicit theory about the attributes asso? group, the standard for perceiving someone as a
ciated with different social groups influences leader shifts from how prototypical that person
the self-concept and identity that one ultimately is of an effective leader in general to how pro?
internalizes. Likewise, research in social psy? totypical that individual is of the local group
chology (Higgins, 1987; La Guardia, 2009; Markus (Lord & Hall, 2005; van Knippenberg & Hogg,
& Nurius, 1986; Waterman, 2004) points to the 2003). In both cases, the more consistency be?
importance of motivation and incentives for the tween the focal individual and one's implicit
exploration and internalization of particular theory of leadership, the more likely one will
identities. Finally, classic theories in sociology attribute the identity of leader to that individual.
(see Stryker & Burke, 2000) and social anthropol? Extending this perspective, we propose that
ogy (Cohen, 1994) emphasize the role of social this reliance on implicit theories of leadership
structure and context in shaping individuals' and followership not only creates a belief about
identities. In our theory we do not give preferen? whether a person is a leader or follower but also
tial treatment to any one of these perspectives prompts the granting of a leader identity to in?
but, rather, span across these different domains dividuals who match their implicit theory. That
to provide an integrative account of what is, when an individual looks like, seems like,
prompts someone to claim or grant a leader or and acts like a leader (follower), people are
follower identity. more likely to grant that person a leader (fol
lower) identity. Granting can occur both in re? of leadership (followership), the more
sponse to claiming acts and without a prior they will claim a leader (follower)
claim by the focal person and can pertain to identity.
either a leader or follower identity. For example,
Proposition 8: The more consistency
individuals' implicit theories for what it means
people see between others' attributes
to be a leader can differ. If the focal person's and their own implicit theory of lead?
implicit theory differs from that of others in the
ership (followership), the more they
social environment, others may see leadership will grant others a leader (follower)
attributes and characteristics in the focal person
identity.
that he or she does not yet see. Thus, the process
of constructing a leadership identity may begin Motivational risks and rewards. A well
with a granting act (e.g., an unexpected desig? established tenet in our understanding of hu?
nation as the leader of a group or task force). man motivation is that self-interest shapes hu?
Similarly, when a focal person seems like and man behavior and action (Miller, 1999; Miller &
acts in line with perceivers' implicit theory for a Ratner, 1998; Schwartz, 1986). Acting leader-like
follower, perceivers grant that identity to the and being seen as a leader is a socially valued
focal person. and rewarded "ideal self" (Higgins, 1987;
Not only can implicit theories affect the grant? Markus & Nurius, 1986) in many organizational
ing of leader and follower identities, but we settings (Day et al., 2009; Kempster, 2006; Van
propose that this same process can also promote Vugt, 2006). It may lead to instrumental rewards
more frequent claiming of these identities. That such as promotions, interpersonal rewards such
is, just as individuals compare others' attributes as power or status, or image-based rewards
to their implicit theories about the prototypical such as a positive reputation. These rewards
attributes and characteristics of leaders and fol? create a motivation to claim this identity. In
lowers (Kenney, Schwartz-Kenney, & Blascovich, addition, individuals are often simply motivated
1996; Lord & Alliger, 1985; Lord, Foti, & Devader, to get things accomplished and claim a leader
1984), so they do with their own personal at? identity because it helps facilitate that accom?
tributes (e.g., their traits, behaviors, skills) as plishment (Quinn, 1996). Likewise, some individ?
well (DeRue et al., 2009). Given that individuals uals, such as those with a high need for power
are motivated to act authentically in accordance (McClelland & Burnham, 2003), might claim a
with their self-views (Foote, 1951) and to engage leader identity because they derive personal,
in acts designed to align others' perceptions of intrinsic satisfaction from influencing others
them with their self-views (Swann, 1990; Swann, and being seen as a leader. When these instru?
Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2002), if there is a match mental, interpersonal, and image-based re?
based on this internal-to-self comparison pro? wards are present and associated with seeing
cess, they will be more likely to claim a leader or oneself and being seen as a leader, we expect
individuals to be motivated to claim a leader
follower identity in social interactions (i.e., to act
as a leader or to follow others' leadership). This identity and grant others a follower identity.
process, at times, may be quite automatic, oper? For example, even if a discrepancy exists be?
tween an individual's self-view and his or her
ating without a lot of conscious thought. At other
implicit theory of leadership (i.e., an individual
times claiming behaviors might be the result of
does not see him or herself as leader-like), he or
a deliberate and conscious process whereby in?
dividuals decide if the attributes of a leader or she may be motivated to experiment with or "try
out" a possible rendition of the self that might
follower are self-descriptive and then engage in
be particularly valued within the organizational
claiming behaviors based on that assessment.
setting (Kempster, 2006). Similar to Ibarras (1999)
Based on these ideas, we put forth two proposi?
notion that individuals experiment with "provi?
tions related to individuals' implicit theories
sional selves," by taking small steps to act like a
and the likelihood of claiming or granting
leader and follower identities. leader, individuals can explore where they
stand with respect to a leader identity. Thus, in
Proposition 7: The more consistency addition to claiming an identity because it is
people see between their own at? believed to be authentic to oneself (Shamir &
tributes and their own implicit theory Eilam, 2005), individuals may claim a leader
identity within their social environment both as mance-of-leadership ideas (Meindl, 1995) sug?
a way to gain instrumental outcomes that come gest that it is in these uncertain times that indi?
from being seen as a leader and as a way to viduals are especially motivated to grant a
determine for themselves whether or not they leader identity to other people, since leadership
view themselves as a leader. Ibarra's research is seen as an antidote to uncertainty.
on provisional selves (Ibarra, 1999; Ibarra, Interpersonal and image risks stem from the
Snook, & Guillen Ramo, 2008) suggests that social nature of the claiming-granting process.
grants from others will further enhance this ex? Individuals may fear the interpersonal awk?
perimentation process because they help create wardness that will arise if their claims for lead?
the motivation for further experimenting with ership go ungranted?for example, if they at?
the identity (e.g., "This person sees me as a tempt to lead but no one follows. Further, as
leader; perhaps I can lead well in this group"). with any proactive, extrarole behavior, such as
Mentors often grant a leader identity to a men voice (Avery & Quinones, 2002) or issue selling
tee, for example, in the hopes of spurring that (Dutton & Ashford, 1993), actively claiming lead?
person's leader identity and subsequent leader ership brings with it a myriad of concerns re?
behaviors. garding how the act of claiming might be per?
The instrumental (e.g., promotions, formal ceived by others (e.g., as appropriate,
power, and authority), interpersonal (e.g., infor? presumptuous, or overly controlling). Proactive
mal power and status), and image (e.g., being actions are thought to be especially risky be?
seen by others positively) rewards associated cause observers consider them to be expressive
with seeing oneself and being seen by others as of individuals' true underlying nature and de?
a leader will also make the claiming of a fol? sires (Bern & Funder, 1978, Grant & Ashford,
lower identity less likely. In settings where a 2008), and this risk is enhanced when individu?
leader identity is highly esteemed, the per? als are new to a situation or lack an established
ceived rewards of leadership will motivate indi? track record of success. In addition, the more
viduals to try to be seen as a leader and, in turn, dissension there is in a group regarding the
not "simply" a follower. However, taking on proper enactment of leadership, the more risk
leadership responsibilities also entails consid? there is in claiming leadership because it is not
erable instrumental, interpersonal, and image clear how best to lead. For example, claims
risk (Gardner, 1995; Heifetz, 1994). While risk per? based on one style of leadership (e.g., a partic?
ceptions may be mitigated somewhat by a past ipative style) may be negatively received by
history of leadership success, psychoanalytic those advocating a different style of leadership
perspectives on leadership suggest that people (e.g., more authoritarian). These arguments sug?
take on the follower role in part as a defense gest the following two propositions.
against the anxieties associated with the risks
of leadership (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992). We ex? Proposition 9: The more individuals
pect that individuals, consciously or uncon? perceive instrumental interpersonal
sciously, assess the level of risk involved when and image rewards associated with
deciding whether or not to claim a leader iden? leadership, (a) the more they will
tity or whether to grant that identity to another claim a leader identity and (b) the
person. more they will grant a follower iden?
The amount of instrumental risk involved in tity to others.
leadership depends in part on the likely fate of
Proposition 10: The more individuals
the group or organization, since groups' suc? perceive instrumental interpersonal
cesses and failures are frequently attributed to
and image risks associated with lead?
the leader (Meindl, 1995; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Duk
ership, (a) the less they will claim a
erich, 1985). Thus, to the extent there is uncer?
leader identity and (b) the more they
tainty regarding a group's proper course of ac?
will claim a follower identity.
tion, and the greater the complexity,
uncertainty, and dynamism of forces affecting Institutional structures. The processes we are
the group's performance, the more we expect describing take place within an organization
individuals to perceive greater instrumental whose formal structures are themselves an in?
risk in taking on leadership responsibilities. Ro stitutionalized form of leader/follower grants.
designated supervisor (e.g., often to follow and

Consistent with the reciprocal nature of the pro?
cess we are describing, these formal structures not challenge his or her direction). As a result,
may be the residual effect of past cycles of these dyadic reporting relationships shape peo?
claiming and granting, the resultant collective ple's behaviors in ways that help construct and
endorsement of leader and follower identities, mutually reinforce leader and follower identi?
and an antecedent to subsequent leadership ties. For any given formal relationship in an
identity construction. Thus, occupying a super? organization, the person in the supervisory po?
visory role represents a powerful institutional sition is more likely to claim a leader identity
grant of a leader identity conveyed through a and grant a follower identity to the subordinate.
formal social structure that all group members In parallel, the subordinate is more likely to
recognize and operate within. Within such sys? claim a follower identity and grant a leader
tems people often hold expectations of a super? identity.
visory role that include leadership. Indeed,
Proposition 11: To the extent people
"leader" is one of the roles of a manager's job
hold formal positions of authority,
identified by Mintzberg (1973). While leadership
those individuals will be more likely
is not synonymous with holding a supervisory
to (a) claim a leader identity and (b)
position and many people in supervisory posi? receive grants of a leader identity
tions do not embody a leader identity, the gen? from others.
eralized expectations of that role bias people's
observations and interpretations of a supervi? The antecedents that we have identified inde?
sor's behavior. As a result, individuals will be pendently and in combination will influence
more likely to grant a leader identity to people when individuals claim and grant leader and
in supervisory positions than they will to indi? follower identities both initially and in response
viduals who are not in these positions. This to others' claims and grants. In the next section
greater likelihood of granting a leader identity we build on these ideas to develop an agenda
will continue until that individual is ineffective for future research that will hopefully serve as a
or acts in ways that are inconsistent with indi? springboard for research on leadership identity
viduals' implicit theories of leadership. and development.
Position incumbents also hold similar social?
ized expectations. As such, they may feel in? AN AGENDA FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:
creased responsibility to and comfort in claim? EMPIRICAL TESTS AND
ing a leader identity. Incumbency also reduces THEORETICAL EXTENSIONS
the potential image risks of such claiming, since
individuals feel particularly free to try leader? We have presented an identity-based process
like acts because of their position. These leader model of leadership development that explains
claiming behaviors are likely to be reinforced how leader-follower relationships become insti?
and affirmed by subordinates as role senders, tutionalized in the social fabric of organizations.
creating even greater freedom to experiment To help build an agenda for future research, we
with a leader identity over time. Thus, it is likely first specify several methodological consider?
that a person's leader identity will be enhanced ations relevant to the empirical testing of our
by being placed in a formal supervisory role, model and then offer several ideas for how
even though the two are not synonymous. scholars might extend our theory in new and
A similar argument can be made for the interesting directions.
claiming and granting of a follower identity. The
same institutional structures in organizations
Empirical Tests of the Model
that grant leadership to one person also advo?
cate that those people formally reporting to the The leadership development process that we
designated supervisor follow that person's di? propose is decidedly social, occurs over time,
rection and guidance. In this sense, an institu? and involves multiple levels of analysis. As
tional structure grants a follower identity to such, a research program designed to empiri?
lower-level actors. At the same time, designated cally test these ideas should have several char?
followers hold socialized expectations about acteristics. First, research must account for the
how they are supposed to act in relation to their individual, dyadic, and organizational aspects
of the identity construction process. The ante? search is how the content and scope of leader
cedents to claiming and granting span multiple and follower identities evolve over time. Leader
levels of analysis, ranging from individual cog? and follower identities will initially develop in
nition to organizational hierarchy and social relation to specific situations, but through re?
structure. As such, research testing our model peated claiming-granting processes, those iden?
needs to capture the individual, relational, and tities can shift from situated to generalized iden?
organizational factors that influence the leader? tities (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007). In addition, claims
ship identity construction process. Similarly, a or grants of a particular identity may be accept?
leadership identity is internalized at the indi? able within a specific context or in regard to
vidual level, recognized in role relationships specific issues, but in other contexts or regard?
among individuals, and collectively endorsed in ing different issues, those same claims or grants
a broader organizational context. Thus, future may be outside the zone of acceptance and,
research, beginning with measurement, must thus, may be met with resistance.
account for these different levels of identity con? Given the social and temporal aspects of our
struction. One question that needs to be ad? theory, several research methods are particu?
dressed is related to the relative importance of larly well-suited to the study of leadership iden?
these different levels of identity construction tities. First, we propose that scholars consider
and how the different levels complement or sup? using a social relations approach (Kenny, 1994;
plement each other in the development of lead? Livi, Kenny, Albright, & Pierro, 2008) for model?
er-follower relationships. Is it possible that a ing the individual, dyadic, and group-level in?
leadership identity cannot be collectively en? fluences on the claiming and granting of leader
dorsed until it is individually internalized or and follower identities. Specifically, researchers
relationally recognized, or might collective en? could have group members and/or observers as?
dorsement prompt individuals to internalize a sess the claiming and granting behaviors of all
leader or follower identity?and how would pro? individuals in the group and then use the social
cesses starting from these different points un? relations model to specify the amount of vari?
fold differently over time? Another question for ance in claiming and granting that is explained
future research is what happens when the three by individual differences (e.g., motivation), rela?
levels of identity construction do not converge. tional ties between actors (e.g., history of prior
For example, what are the implications for lead? claims and grants), and group-level factors (e.g.,
ership development if a person fails to individ? institutional structures).
ually internalize a leader identity that is both Second, experience-sampling methods (Csik
relationally recognized and collectively en? szentmihalyi & Larson, 1992; Wheeler & Reis,
dorsed in the broader organizational context? 1991) could be used to capture in real time the
Second, to specify causality and model the patterns of claiming and granting that lead to
reciprocal nature of claiming and granting, the the construction of leader-follower relation?
leadership identity construction process needs ships. For example, researchers could examine
to be examined over time. The importance of new groups where these relationships are not
delineating the temporal aspects of the process already established and could use daily sam?
is evident in research by Shamir and Eilam pling of claims and grants to predict the emer?
(2005), where behavioral acts that we would gence of leader-follower identities and relation?
classify as grants of a leader identity were not ships in the group over time. This particular
always followed by the focal individual's claim? method would also be ideal for studying other
ing leadership and did not lead to the construc? dynamic factors that might prompt claiming and
tion of a leadership identity. In our theory we granting, such as an individual's performance
posit that prior claims and grants can carry for? and personal track record of success as a leader.
ward and influence future claims and grants. Third, echoing Parry's (1998) call for more
Longitudinal research testing these ideas grounded theory research on leadership, we call
should seek to specify why claiming and grant? for more in-depth, qualitative studies to under?
ing are sometimes reciprocal and create posi? stand the form and nature of claiming and
tive spirals and why the process is sometimes granting in leader-follower relationships. Qual?
disrupted and breaks down. Another question itative methods that involve observational (e.g.,
that should be explored via longitudinal re ethnography) and/or narrative (e.g., autoethnog
raphy) techniques will be particularly valuable motivated to lead converge on a hierarchical

in capturing what may only be a semi- or uncon? leadership-structure schema, the group will
scious process of acting and reacting to others. likely experience a great deal of competitive
By gathering rich, in-depth accounts of the indi? claiming with little reciprocal granting. Accord?
vidual cognitive processes and relational pro? ing to our theory, this will create a situation in
cesses that underlie the claiming and granting which leader and follower identities are not
process, this research would go a long way to? fully internalized, recognized, or collectively en?
ward explaining the development and evolution dorsed. It is important that future theorizing
of leader-follower relationships. specify how such competing claims get resolved
Finally, given the early stage of theorizing in in groups.
this area, perhaps the greatest potential for fu? Second, although we identify general catego?
ture research lies in experimental studies that ries of antecedents to claiming and granting,
enable researchers to control the presence and there are complexities related to these anteced?
absence of claiming and granting behaviors in ents that are not fully captured in our theorizing
groups. These experiments will be particularly and, thus, necessitate further theory develop?
valuable for establishing causality and under? ment. For example, we highlight different types
standing what factors govern the initiation of of motivational rewards and risks associated
claims and grants or impede the reciprocation of with claiming and granting either a leader or
reinforcing claims and grants. By manipulating follower identity, but in organizational contexts
the presence of grants following claims or the it is likely that these rewards and risks will not
presence of claims following grants, researchers always be aligned. Future research that ex?
can capture the reciprocal nature of the process plains how people evaluate and make trade-offs
and, by varying context, can explicitly model the between different rewards and risks during the
effect of contextual elements such as group leadership identity construction process would
norms on the leadership development process. offer a meaningful extension to our theory. In
addition, although we highlight formal institu?
Theoretical Extensions and New Directions tional structures as an important antecedent, we
encourage scholars to extend our theory by also
There are several aspects of our theorizing considering the impact of informal structures,
that provide the foundation for new and inter? such as social stratification and status hierar?
esting directions in research on leadership iden? chies (Blau & Duncan, 1967; Lenski, 1984) and
tity and development. First, while our theorizing social networks (Granovetter, 1985; Krackhardt,
describes how the identity construction process 1990). For example, do men and women, because
between individuals might unfold over time, fu? of status or stereotype differences, experience
ture research needs to complicate this picture the leadership identity construction process in
further by considering the process at the group different ways? Or how does individuals' posi?
level. When there are numerous individuals en? tion within informal networks influence the
gaged in the claiming-granting process, the claiming and granting of both leader and fol?
group-level composition and dispersion of vari? lower identities, independent of their position
ables such as implicit leadership theories, mo? within the formal organizational hierarchy? Re?
search investigating questions such as these
tivation, and leadership-structure Schemas will
would begin to model the intersection of the
likely influence how the process unfolds (DeRue,
Hollenbeck, Ilgen, & Feltz, 2010; Harrison & claiming and granting processes specified in
Klein, 2007). For example, if everyone in a group this article with the underlying social structures
perceives high instrumental rewards for being a embedded within organizations.
leader, the leadership identity construction pro? Finally, there is a need for future research that
cess will likely feature more competitive claims, explicitly models the role of organizational and
less granting, and, as a result, less emergence of cultural contexts on the leadership identity con?
a well-defined leadership identity. In fact, the struction process. Our work provides specifics
impact of having numerous individuals moti? for a nascent recognition of organizations as
vated to lead may depend, importantly, on the "identity workspaces" within which individuals
predominant leadership-structure schema in the work out who they are with respect to the con?
group. For example, if group members who are text and each other (Petriglieri & Petriglieri,
2010 Define and Ashford 643
2010). In some contexts acts of leadership might ries of tactics used to achieve this cocreation,
be discouraged by cultural norms and values and delineate some of the antecedents and con?
(Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001), whereas ditions that govern its unfolding.
other contexts (e.g., empowered, decentralized Understanding this process may be particu?
organizational cultures; Spreitzer, 1996) might larly important for understanding leadership
encourage individuals to take on leadership re? development in contexts increasingly character?
sponsibilities in groups (Howell & Shamir, 2005). ized by rotated (Erez, LePine, & Elms, 2002), dis?
tributed (Gronn, 2002), and/or shared (Carson et
In these contexts, claiming of a leader identity is
expected and normatively sanctioned, giving in? al., 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003) leadership. The
dividuals the space to experiment with a leader more members of these groups have internal?
identity and assess the extent to which that ized leadership identities that are mutually rec?
identity reflects their true self. ognized and collectively endorsed, the more suc?
It is also possible that some organizations cessful these distributed and shared forms of
have norms that enable more rapid construction leadership will be. Our hope is that the present
of leadership identities?for example, in organi? theory provides the foundation for expanding
zations where there is a common leadership the field's conception of leadership and leader?
structure schema that is firmly held and widely ship development processes and that it stimu?
shared. Whether that leadership-structure lates future research on leadership develop?
schema is hierarchical or shared, its strength as ment as a social and mutual influence process.
a norm should facilitate reciprocal claiming and
granting and allow for the rapid development of
well-defined leader-follower relationships. In REFERENCES
contrast, organizations without such norms or Alvesson, M. 1994. Talking in organizations: Managing iden?
organizations going through significant tity and impressions in an advertising agency. Organi?
changes might experience greater conflict over zation Studies, 15: 535-563.
leadership and within leader-follower relation? Ancona, D., & Backman, E. V. 2008. Distributed, shared or
ships (Kan & Parry, 2004), which, in turn, may collective leadership: A new leadership model for the
distract from effective work performance. One collaborative era? Paper presented at the annual meet?
ing of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
interesting question that should be explored is
what happens when individuals' leadership Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An
identity-based perspective: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
structure Schemas converge (e.g., around a Erlbaum Associates.
shared schema) but those Schemas are inconsis?
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. 1999. "How can you do it?":
tent with the dominant leadership-structure Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive
schema in the broader organizational context. identity. Academy of Management Review, 24: 413-434.
Scholars could extend our theorizing in new and
Avery, D. R., & Quinones, M. A. 2002. Disentangling the ef?
interesting directions by modeling how these fects of voice: The incremental roles of opportunity, be?
different organizational contexts influence the havior, and instrumentality in predicting procedural
leadership development process. fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 81-86.
Avolio, B. J. 2007. Promoting more integrative strategies for
leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62:
CONCLUDING REMARKS 25-33.
To address recent calls to define leadership Bargh, J. A. 1989. Conditional automaticity: Varieties of au?
as a social and mutual influence process, our tomatic influence in social perception and cognition. In
J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought:
models of leadership must illuminate the pro? 3-51. New York: Guilford Press.
cesses by which leadership relationships and
Bartel, C, & Dutton, J. 2001. Ambiguous organizational mem?
identities are developed. In this article we build
berships: Constructing organizational identities in in?
on prior research to articulate a process by teractions with others. In M. Hogg & D. J. Terry (Eds.),
which individuals jointly construct a leadership Social identity processes in organizational contexts: 115?
relationship and explain why some individuals 130. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
come to be seen as leaders and others as follow? Bass, B., & Bass, R. 2008. The Bass handbook of leadership:
ers. We describe a generative process whereby Theory, research, and managerial applications. New
York: Free Press.
individuals cocreate their respective identities
as leaders and followers, specify broad catego Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. 2006. Academic amnesia and
vestigial assumptions of our forefathers. Leadership Day, D. V., & Lance, C. E. 2004. Understanding the develop?
Quarterly. 17: 190-205. ment of leadership complexity through latent growth
modeling. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.),
Bern, D. J., & Funder, D. C. 1978. Predicting more of people
Leader development for transforming organizations: 41
more of the time?Assessing personality of situations.
69. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Psychological Review, 85: 485-501.
Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (Eds.). 2004. Leader
Bion, W. R. 1961. Experiences in groups. New York: Basic
Books. deve/opmenf for transforming organizations. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. 1967. The American occupational
DeRue, D. S., Ashford, S. J., & Cotton, N. C. 2009. Assuming the
structure. New York: Wiley.
mantle: Unpacking the process by which individuals
Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and internalize a leader identity. In L. M. Roherts & J. E.
method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organi?
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this" we"? Levels zations: Building a theoretical and research foundation:
of collective identity and self representations. Journal of 213-232. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 83-93. DeRue, D. S., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Feltz, D. 2010.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. 2007. Shared Efficacy dispersion in teams: Moving beyond agreement
leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent con? and aggregation. Personnel Psychology, 63: 1-40.
ditions and performance. Academy of Management Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top man?
Journal, 50: 1217-1234. agement. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. 1994. Heuristic processing Erez, A., LePine, J. A., & Elms, H. 2002. Effects of rotated
can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credi? leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and
bility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on at? effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-experi
titude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psy? ment. Personnel Psychology, 55: 929-948.
chology, 66: 460-473. Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. 1957. Schedules of reinforce?
Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. 2001. Toward a theory of individ? ment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
ual differences and leadership: Understanding the mo?
Fisher, C. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Hoyer, W. D. 1979. Source credi?
tivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 481?
bility, information favorability, and job offer acceptance.
498.
Academy of Management Journal, 22: 94-103.
Charan, R., Drotter, S., & Noel, J. 2000. The leadership pipe?
Fiske, S. T., Kenny, D. A., & Taylor, S. E. 1982. Structural
line: How to build the leadership-powered company. models for the mediation of salience effects on attribu?
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18: 105
Chen, C. C, & Meindl, J. R. 1991. The construction of leader? 127.
ship images in the popular press: The case of Donald Foote, N. N. 1951. Identification as the basis for a theory of
Burr and People Express. Administrative Science Quar? motivation. American Sociological Review, 16: 14-21.
terly, 36: 521-551.
Gallo, C. 2006. Leaders must look the part. BusinessWeek.
Cohen, A. P. 1994. Self consciousness: An alternative anthro?
January 16: http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/
pology of identity. New York: Routledge. content/jan2006/sb20060118_041997.htm.
Collinson, D. 2005. Dialectics of leadership. Human Rela? Gardner, H. 1995. Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership.
tions. 58: 1419-1442. New York: Basic Books.
Collinson, D. 2006. Rethinking followership: A post Gardner, W. L., & Avolio, B. J. 1998. The charismatic relation?
structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadership ship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Manage?
Quarterly, 17: 179-189. ment Review, 23: 32-58.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. 1992. Validity and reliabil? Gecas, V. 1982. The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociol?
ity of the experience sampling method. In M. W. de Vries ogy, 8: 1-33.
(Ed.), The experience of psychopathology: Investigating
mental disorders in their natural settings: 43-57. Cam? Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. 1992. Leadership?An alienating
bridge: Cambridge University Press. social myth. Human Relations, 45: 113-129.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. 1984. Information richness?A new Gergen, K. J. 1968. Personal consistency and the presentation
approach to managerial behavior and organization de? of self. In C. Gordon & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), The self in
sign. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 191-233. social interaction: 299-308. New York: Wiley.
Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life.
Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. 2007. A multilevel, identity
based approach to leadership development. Human Re? Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
source Management Review, 17: 360-373. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader
Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., & Halpin, S. M. 2009. An integra
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.
tive approach to leader development: Connecting adult
Leadership Quarterly, 6: 219-247.
development, identity, and expertise. New York: Psy?
chology Press. Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic-action and social-struc
ture?The problem of embeddedness. American Journal follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership
of Sociology, 91: 481-510. processes. Academy of Management Review. 32: 500
528.
Grant, A., & Ashford, S. J. 2008. The dynamics of proactivity at
work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 3-34. Kellerman, B. 2008. Followership: How followers are creating
Gronn, P. 2002. Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.
change and changing leaders. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Leadership Quarterly, 13: 423-451.
Hall, D. T. 2004. Self-awareness, identity, and leader devel? Kempster, S. 2006. Leadership learning through lived expe?
rience: A process of apprenticeship? Journal of Manage?
opment. In D. V. Day, S. J. Zaccaro, & S. M. Halpin (Eds.),
Leader development for transforming organizations: ment & Organization. 12(1): 4-22.
153-176. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kenney, R. A., Schwartz-Kenney, B. M., & Blascovich, J. 1996.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. 2007. What's the difference? Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described
Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychol?
ogy Bulletin, 22: 1128-1143.
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32:
1199-1228. Kenny, D. A. 1994. Interpersonal perception: A social relations
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 2002. The dynamics of organiza? analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
tional identity. Human Relations, 55: 989-1018. Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C,
Heifetz, R. A. 1994. Leadership without easy answers. Cam? & Osteen, L. 2005. Developing a leadership identity. Jour?
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. nal of College Student Development 46: 593-611.
Higgins, E. T. 1987. Self-discrepancy?A theory relating self Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. 2003. The leadership challenge
and affect. Psychological Review, 94: 319-340. (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoang, H., & Gimeno, J. 2010. Becoming a founder: How Krackhardt, D. 1990. Assessing the political landscape?
founder role identity affects entrepreneurial transitions Structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Ad?
and persistence in founding. Journal of Business Ventur? ministrative Science Quarterly, 35: 342-369.
ing, 25: 41-53. Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Where is
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. 1995. A tale of two the "me" among the "we"? Identity work and the search
theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal,
49: 1031-1057.
social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58:
255-269. La Guardia, J. G. 2009. Developing who I am: A self
Hollander, E. P. 1978. Leadership dynamics: A practical guide determination theory approach to the establishment of
to effective relations. New York: Free Press. healthy identities. Educational Psychologist, 44: 90-104.
Hollander, E. P. 1993. Legitimacy, power, and influence: A Langer, E., Blank, A., & Chanowitz, B. 1978. Mindlessness of
perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. ostensibly thoughtful action?Role of placebic informa?
Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and re? tion in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality
search: Perspectives and directions: 29-48. San Diego: and Social Psychology, 36: 635-642.
Academic Press. Lenski, G. E. 1984. Power and privilege: A theory of social
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. 2005. The role of followers in the stratification. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their Press.
consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30: 96 Livi, S., Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., & Pierro, A. 2008. A social
112.
relations analysis of leadership. Leadership Quarterly,
Ibarra, H. 1999. Provisional selves: Experimenting with im? 19: 235-248.
age and identity in professional adaptation. Adminis? Lord, R. G. 1985. An information processing approach to
trative Science Quarterly, 44: 764-791. social perceptions, leadership perceptions, and behav?
Ibarra, H., & Barbulescu, R. 2010. Identity as narrative: Prev? ioral measurement in organizational settings. Research
alence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative in Organizational Behavior. 7: 87-128.
identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. 1985. A comparison of four
Management Review, 35: 135-154. information processing models of leadership and social
Ibarra, H., Snook, S., & Guillen Ramo, L. 2008. Identity-based perceptions. Human Relations. 38: 47-65.
leader development. INSEAD working paper series No. Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. 2001.
32, Fontainebleau, France. Contextual constraints on prototype generation and
JnsideHoops.com. 2004. Lebron James interview. http://www. their multilevel consequences for leadership percep?
insidehoops.com/lebron-james-interview-0104003.shtml, ac? tions. Leadership Quarterly, 12: 311-338.
cessed January 30, 2010. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Devader, C. L. 1984. A test of leader?
Kan, M. M., & Parry, K. W. 2004. Identifying paradox: A ship categorization theory?Internal structure, informa?
grounded theory of leadership in overcoming resistance tion-processing, and leadership perceptions. Organiza?
to change. Leadership Quarterly, 15: 467-491. tional Behavior and Human Performance, 34: 343-378.
Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. 2005. Identity, deep structure and the
development of leadership skill. Leadership Quarterly, among medical residents. Academy of Management
16: 591-615. Journal 49: 235-262.
Lord, R. G., & M?her, K. J. 1991. Leadership and information Proctor, R. W., & Dutta, A. 1993. Do the same stimulus
processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Bos? response relations influence choice reactions initially
ton: Unwin Hyman. and after practice? Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19: 922-930.
Luhrmann, T., & Eberl, P. 2007. Leadership and identity con?
struction: Reframing the leader-follower interaction Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. 1986. Socia7 conflict: Escalation,
from an identity theory perspective. Leadership, 3: 115? stalemate and settlement New York: Random House.
127.
Quinn, R. E. 1996. Deep change: Discovering the leader
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. 1986. Possible selves. American within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Psychologist, 41: 954-969.
Sampson, E. E. 1963. Status congruence and cognitive con?
Masuch, M. 1985. Vicious circles in organizations. Adminis? sistency. Sociometry, 26: 146-162.
trative Science Quarterly. 30: 14-33.
Sampson, E. E. 1985. The decentralization of identity: Toward
McClelland, D. C, & Burnham, D. H. 2003. Power is the great a revised concept of personal and social order. Ameri?
motivator. Harvard Business Review, 81(1): 117-126. can Psychologist 40: 1203-1211.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: University Schwartz, B. 1986. The battle for human nature. New York:
of Chicago Press. Norton.
Meindl, J. R. 1995. The romance of leadership as a follower Schyns, B., & Meindl, J. R. 2005. Implicit leadership theories:
centric theory?A social constructionist approach. Lead? Essays and explorations. Charlotte, NC: Information
ership Quarterly, 6: 329-341. Age.
Meindl, J. R.f Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The ro? Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in administration: A sociologi?
mance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, cal interpretation. New York: Harper & Row.
30: 78-102.
Shamir, B., Dayan-Horesh, H., & Adler, D. 2005. Leading by
Miller, D. T. 1999. The norm of self-interest. American Psy? biography: Towards a life-story approach to the study of
chologist, 54: 1053-1060. leadership. Leadership, 1: 13-29.
Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. 1998. The disparity between the Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. 2005. What's your story??Toward a
actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of life-story approach to authentic leadership. Leadership
Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 53-62. Quarterly, 16: 395-418.
Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of managerial work. New Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1993. The motivational
York: Harper & Row. effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based
theory. Organization Science, 4: 577-594.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. 2010. Leadership
in teams: A functional approach to understanding lead? Sjostrand, S. E., Sandberg, J., & Tyrstrup, M. 2001. Invisible
ership structures and processes. Journal of Manage? management: The social construction of leadership. Lon?
ment, 36: 5-39. don: Thomson Learning.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. 1998. Habit and intention in Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2007. Relational identity and
everyday life: The multiple processes by which past identification: Defining ourselves through work rela?
behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulle? tionships. Academy of Management Review, 32: 9-32.
tin, 124: 54-74.
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. 1987. Identity work among the
Parry, K. W. 1998. Grounded theory and social process: A new homeless: The verbal construction and avowal of per?
direction for leadership research. Leadership Quarterly, sonal identities. American Journal of Sociology, 92:
9: 85-105. 1336-1371.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. 2003. Shared leadership: Re Spreitzer, G. M. 1996. Social structural characteristics of psy?
framing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand chological empowerment. Academy of Management
Oaks, CA: Sage. Journal, 39: 483-504.
Petriglieri, G., & Petriglieri, J. 2010. Identity workspaces: The Spreitzer, G. M., & Quinn, R. E. 2001. A company of leaders:
case of business schools. Academy of Management Five disciplines for unleashing the power in your work?
Learning & Education, 9: 44-60. force. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. 1986. Communication and per? Stryker, S. 1980. Symbolic interactionism: A social structural
suasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.
change. New York: Springer.
Stryker, S., & Burke, P. I. 2000. The past, present, and future of
Pfeffer, J. 1977. The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of an identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63: 284
Management Review, 2: 104-112. 297.
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006. Con? Sveningsson, S. F., & Alvesson, M. 2003. Managing manage?
structing professional identity: The role of work and rial identities: Organizational fragmentation, discourse
identity learning cycles in the customization of identity and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56: 1163-1193.
Swann, W. B., Jr. 1990. To be adored or to be known. Motiva? model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Re?
tion and Cognition, 2: 408-448. search in Organizational Behavior, 25: 245-297.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. 2002. Self Van Vugt, M. 2006. Evolutionary origins of leadership and
verification: The search for coherence. In M. Leary & followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
J. Tagney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity: 367-383. 10: 354.
New York: Guilford Press.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2008. Leadership,
Thompson, L., & Hastie, R. 1990. Social perception in negoti? followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past.
ation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision American Psychologist, 63: 182-196.
Processes, 47: 98-123.
Waterman, A. S. 2004. Finding someone to be: Studies on the
Turner, J. C. 1978. Social categorization and social discrimi?
role of intrinsic motivation in identity formation. Iden?
nation in the minimal group paradigm. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),
tity, 4: 209-228.
Differentiation between social groups: 235-250. London:
Academic Press. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. 1998. Control and automaticity
Turner, J. C, Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Weth
in social life. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
erell, M. S. 1987. Rediscovering the social group: A self (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.): 446-496.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
categorization theory. Oxford & New York: Blackwell.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. 2007. Complexity Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the indus?
trial age to the knowledge era. Leadership Quarterly, 18: Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. 1991. Self-recording of everyday life
298-318.
events: Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality,
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. 2003. A social identity 59: 339-354.
D. Scott DeRue (dsderue@umich.edu) is an assistant professor of management and

organizations at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross School of Business. He
received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. His research focuses on leadership
and team dynamics, with a particular focus on how leaders and teams in organiza?
tions adapt, learn, and develop over time.
Susan J. Ashford (sja@umich.edu) is the Michael and Susan Jandernoa Professor of

Management and Organization at the University of Michigan's Stephen M. Ross
School of Business. Sue received her Ph.D. from Northwestern University. Her current
research interests include leader effectiveness, issue selling, feedback, self
management, and individual proactivity.

Who Will Lead Who Will Follow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Who Will Lead Who Will Follow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHO WILL LEAD AND WHO WILL FOLLOW?

A SOCIAL PROCESS OF LEADERSHIP IDENTITY

WHO WILL LEAD AND WHO WILL FOLLOW? A

We propose that a leadership identity is coconstructed in organizations when indi?

LEADERSHIP IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION on a reciprocal follower identity). This relational

construction at the organizational level and in leader or follower identity in a particular

! leader ! Identity work

Clarity and acceptance of

Grant leader/Claim follower

(b) Successful construction:

Person A Person B Person A Person B

Grant leader/Claim follower Grant leader/Claim foll

designated supervisor (e.g., often to follow and

raphy) techniques will be particularly valuable motivated to lead converge on a hierarchical

D. Scott DeRue (dsderue@umich.edu) is an assistant professor of management and

Susan J. Ashford (sja@umich.edu) is the Michael and Susan Jandernoa Professor of

You might also like