Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Elsevier, The Leadership Quarterly, 1(22), p. 170-181, 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.014

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Leadership, power and the use of surveillance: Implications of shared social identity for leaders' capacity to influence

This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

To ensure subordinates' compliance with organizational policies and procedures, those in positions of organizational leadership and authority have a number of resources at their disposal (e.g. rewards and punishments, surveillance, persuasion). When choosing strategies that will maximise their capacity to influence, however, leaders cannot afford to overlook the role of social identity processes. Evidence from two studies shows that the success or otherwise of strategies such as rewards/punishments and surveillance depends on whether the leader is considered to be an ingroup or outgroup member. In line with hypotheses, the results indicate that while surveillance may be a necessary tool in the repertoire of outgroup leaders (Experiment 2), in the hands of ingroup leaders it is likely to attenuate rather than enhance their capacity to influence ( and ).