Barbara van Knippenberg

Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality

Self-sacrificing behavior of the leader and the extent to which the leader is representative of the group (i.e., group prototypical) are proposed to interact to influence leadership effectiveness. The authors expected self-sacrificing leaders to be considered more effective and to be able to push subordinates to a higher performance level than non-self-sacrificing leaders, and these effects were expected to be more pronounced for less prototypical leaders than for more prototypical leaders. The results of a laboratory experiment showed that, as expected, productivity levels, effectiveness ratings, and perceived leader group-orientedness and charisma were positively affected by leader self-sacrifice, especially when leader prototypicality was low. The main results were replicated in a scenario experiment and 2 surveys.

Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective

An analysis of the social identity processes involved in organizational mergers suggests that organizational identification after a merger is contingent on a sense of continuity of identity. This sense of continuity, in turn, is argued to be contingent on the extent to which the individuals own pre-merger organization dominates, or is dominated by, the merger partner. In support of this analysis, results of two surveys of merged organizations showed that pre-merger and post-merger identification were more positively related for members of dominant as opposed to dominated organizations, whereas perceived differences between the merger partners were more negatively related to post-merger identification for members of the dominated compared with the dominant organization.

Leadership and Fairness: The State of the Art

Research in leadership effectiveness has paid less to the role of leader fairness than probably it should have. More recently, this has started to change. To capture this development, we review the empirical literature in leadership and fairness to define the field of leadership and fairness, to assess the state of the art, and to identify a research agenda for future efforts in the field. The review shows that leader distributive, procedural, and especially interactional fairness are positively associated with criteria of leadership effectiveness. More scarce and scattered evidence also suggests that fairness considerations help explain the effectiveness of other aspects of leadership, and that leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, or the leadership context, may interact in predicting leadership effectiveness. We conclude that future research should especially focus on interaction effects of leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, and on the processes mediating these effects.

Future Interaction Expectation and the Use of Soft and Hard Influence Tactics

Les strategies d’influence varient en fonction du controle qu’elles exercent sur la situation et la cible. Les strategies “douces” laissent plus que les strategies “dures” la possibilitie pour la cible d’accepter ou de rejeter la tentative d’influence. La solution “dure” engendre donc generalement une plus grande tension dans la relation entre la cible et l’agent d’influence. Cette recherche est centree sur la consequence que la representation de l’interaction a venir peut avoir sur le choix d l’une ou l’autre strategie. Les resultats d’une experience indiquent que l’expectation d’une interaction diminue l’appel a l’influence en general et aux strategies d’influence dure en particulier. On peur supposer que la perspective d’une interaction prolongee rend moins attractif le choix d’un comportement qui pourrait mettre la relation en danger. Les resultants ont aussi montre que les strategies douces etaient plus employees que les dures et que les homes faisaient plus appel a l’influence que les femmes. The influence tactics that people use may vary in the extent to which they take control over the situation and the target. Soft tactics allow the target of influence more latitude in deciding whether or not to accept the employed influence than hard tactics. As a consequence hard influence tactics usually place more strain on the relationship between influencing agent and target. This study focused on the effect that the expectation of future interaction may have on the use of hard and soft influence tactics. The results of an experiment indicated that the expectation of a future interaction diminished the use of influence in general and of hard influence tactics in particular. Presumably, the expectancy of prolonged interaction made the display of behavior that might endanger the relationship less attractive. Furthermore, results showed that soft tactics were used more often than hard ones and that men employed more influence than women.

Self-esteem and outcome fairness: differential importance of procedural and outcome considerations.

Results of a survey of 222 detainees in Dutch jails and police stations showed that outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with high self-esteem were more strongly related to outcome considerations than to procedural considerations, whereas outcome-fairness judgments of individuals with low self-esteem were more strongly related to procedural considerations than to outcome considerations. It was proposed that these differences were due to the fact that (a) procedures more strongly express a social evaluation than outcomes and (b) individuals with low self-esteem are more concerned with social evaluations than individuals with high self-esteem. The implications of the results for other individual-differences factors and other populations than detainees are discussed.

The Use of Hard and Soft Influence Tactics in Cooperative Task Groups

This study focused on the effect of relative competence and confidence in ones own task solution on the use of hard and soft influence tactics. For this purpose a 2 (relative competence: high/low) × 2 (influence tactic: hard/soft) between-subjects design, with the level of confidence generated by task characteristics as within-subjects factor, was employed. Results revealed that high competence individuals were less susceptible to the strength of the available influence tactic than low competence individuals: whereas high competence group members used hard tactics about as often as soft tactics, low competence group members used hard tactics less often than soft ones. However, this effect only showed when the task gave rise to high confidence in ones own task solution. When low competence group members had relatively low confidence, the frequency by which they used soft tactics declined substantially. All in all, the results suggest that people who aim for a positive group outcome employ influence tactics cautiously.

Power Use in Cooperative and Competitive Settings

In this study we argue that when powerholder and target operate in a cooperative context, the decision to use power is influenced by the motive to reach positive joint outcomes. When the context is competitive, the use of power is more dictated by the desire to gain positive outcomes at the expense of the target. Therefore, factors that are indicative of how to bring about positive outcomes for the target will only influence power use in a cooperative context. The results of an experimental study with a 2 (social context: cooperation vs. competition) x2 (relative competence: high vs. low) between-subjects design, with task components generating 2 levels of confidence as within-subjects variable, supported our line of reasoning. Competence of the powerholder as well as confidence as elicited by the task only affected power use in cooperation and not in competition. The results also indicated that the absolute level of power use in competition and cooperation did not differ.

Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation

We examined how leader emotional displays affect team performance. We developed and tested the idea that effects of leader displays of anger versus happiness depend on followers’ epistemic motivation, which is the desire to develop a thorough understanding of a situation. Experimental data on four-person teams engaged in an interdependent team task showed that teams with higher epistemic motivation performed better when their leaders displayed anger (mediated by team members’ performance inferences), whereas teams with lower epistemic motivation performed better when the leaders expressed happiness (mediated by team members’ affective reactions). Theoretical contributions and managerial ramifications are discussed.