The value of leaders we trust and leaders who make us stronger: Exploring the distinct contributions of different components of identity leadership to group member outcomes

  • Kira BIBIC*
  • , Svenja B. FRENZEL
  • , Rudolf KERSCHREITER
  • , Jeremy WILSON-LEMOINE
  • , Niklas STEFFENS
  • , S. Alexander HASLAM
  • , Lucas MONZANI
  • , Serap Arslan AKFIRAT
  • , Christine Joy A. BALLADA
  • , Tahir BAZAROV
  • , John Jamir Benzon R. ARUTA
  • , Lorenzo AVANZI
  • , Aldijana BUNJAK
  • , Matej ČERNE
  • , Charlotte M. EDELMANN
  • , Olga EPITROPAKI
  • , Katrien FRANSEN
  • , Cristina GARCÍA-AEL
  • , Steffen GIESSNER
  • , Ilka H. GLEIBS
  • Dorota GODLEWSKA-WERNER, Ronit KARK, Ana LAGUIA GONZALEZ, Hodar LAM, Anna LUPINA-WEGENER, Yannis MARKOVITS, Mazlan MASKOR, Fernando Jorge MOLERO ALONSO, Juan A. MORIANO LEÓN, Pedro NEVES, Daniela PAUKNEROVÁ, Sylwiusz RETOWSKI, Christine ROLAND-LÉVY, Adil SAMEKIN, Sebastian SCHUH, Tomoki SEKIGUCHI, Lynda Jiwen SONG, Joana STORY, Jeroen STOUTEN, Liliya SULTANOVA, Srinivasan TATACHARI, Lisanne VAN BUNDEREN, Dina VAN DIJK, Sut I. WONG, Xin‘an ZHANG, Rolf VAN DICK
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)peer-review

Abstract

This study investigates the critical role of social identity in leadership, specifically examining identity leadership (IL) and the unique contributions of its four subdimensions: identity prototypicality, identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship, and identity impresarioship. To date, research has largely focused on the global construct of identity leadership and shown that in organizational contexts, it is a predictor of a range of outcomes, including group members’ burnout and organizational citizenship. However, the distinct roles of the four subdimensions remain little understood. Extending earlier findings, we address this gap by testing the hypothesis that the four subdimensions are differentially implicated in two key mechanisms that underlie the relationship between IL and group outcomes: (a) trust in the leader and (b) team identification. The present study explores this proposition by using structural equation modeling with latent factors to test a mediation model in 2020–2021 data from the Global Identity Leadership Development project (GILD; N = 7,855). As hypothesized, we found that identity prototypicality and identity advancement predominantly predicted greater trust in the leader, whereas identity entrepreneurship primarily predicted greater team identification. Contrary to our hypothesis, identity impresarioship showed a negative relation with trust. In turn, both trust in the leader and team identification were positively associated with organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and negatively with burnout. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of these findings for both the theory and practice of leadership.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages21
JournalGroup Processes and Intergroup Relations
Early online date21 Aug 2025
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 21 Aug 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Karl Schlecht Stiftung and by the ConTrust Research Center at Goethe University.

Keywords

  • dimensions
  • identity leadership
  • social identity
  • team identification
  • trust

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The value of leaders we trust and leaders who make us stronger: Exploring the distinct contributions of different components of identity leadership to group member outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this