The Role of Social Work Leaders in Eliciting Cooperative Behaviour

Abstract

The essence of how social work leaders elicit cooperation has not received much attention even though the social work profession has produced great leaders. Research has questioned the extent to which existing leadership models apply to social work leadership and proposed the development of a leadership model that is embedded in social work ethics, values and goals. However, neither leadership nor followership happens in social vacuum. Thus, to understand social work leadership and its effects, it is necessary to understand the social context in which they occur and how leaders behave within particular social contexts. This analysis suggests that, in order to comprehend the influence of social work leaders on followers (i.e., social workers), we must first understand the nature of the relationship that already exists between leaders and followers and how this relationship or context influences whether the leader’s prototypicality or behaviour makes the followers to be more likely to engage in cooperative behaviour.

1. Introduction

Social life has been shelled by countless problems. Social workers have relentlessly engaged in critical roles regarding the development and implementation of interventions to manage social problems. These interventions include mitigating persistent poverty, ensuring healthy development for children and youth, closing the health gap, stopping family violence, advancing long and productive lives, eradicating social isolation, ending homelessness, creating social responses to changing environment (e.g., by reducing substance abuse and mass incarceration), harnessing technology for social good, promoting smart decarceration, reducing extreme economic inequality, building financial capability for all and achieving equal opportunity and justice [1, 2, 3]. The implementation of social work interventions requires the cooperation of different non-governmental and governmental sectors, individual social workers, social work groups, other professionals and society at large [4].

Research, based on the evolutionary analysis of cooperation [5, 6], outlines conditions under which individuals are most likely to cooperate and proposes mechanisms in which cooperation can evolve and spread amongst people [7]. From this perspective, cooperation is defined as a process of social interaction by which individuals, groups and organisations come together, interact and form psychological relationships for mutual gain or benefit ([8], p. 10; see also [9]). Hence, cooperative behaviour is seen as a result of consistency in the opportunities for mutually rewarding activities by the people involved in a relationship [6, 7]. It may also be viewed as the degree to which the group members engage in behaviours that are beneficial for the groups they belong to (i.e., [10]).

This chapter adopts the perspective that people are most likely to cooperate with those who are similar to them and are part of their social circles (i.e., spatial selection, [11]) and that cooperation is most likely to develop, spread and be enhanced within groups through the implementation of group norms [6, 7]. Group norms are likely to be effective if they express the central values of the group and clarify what is distinctive about the group’s identity. They are existential for the group’s existence (i.e., group survival), they determine group members’ behaviour (i.e., behavioural expectations), they make the group distinct (i.e., create a social identity) and they express the central values shared by the group (i.e., social identity). Groups develop norms to guide and direct member’s behaviour, provide order, allow members to make sense of, understand each other’s actions and predict each other’s behaviours in social relationships (i.e., group, [12, 13, 14, 15]). Cooperation is enhanced when cooperative norms are present, especially when norms of the group are similar to norms of the self [16, 17, 18, 19]. Leaders play an essential role in the formation and enforcement of group norms and so do social identity processes [20, 21, 22, 23]. For instance, leaders who demonstrate leadership behaviour that promotes unity (i.e., cohesiveness and solidarity) and oneness are perceived as more effective and influential when compared to leaders who demonstrate leadership behaviour that promotes hierarchy (i.e., ranks and seniority differences; [24]. Likewise, followers’ preferred interaction between leaders and followers is the communal sharing relationship [25]. Moreover, leaders who are perceived as prototypical of the ingroup and who treat group members in a fair manner are likely to prompt high levels of cooperation within a work group context [26]. These results suggest that, in a particular leader-follower relationship, leaders are instrumental in eliciting cooperative behaviour. This analysis suggests that, in order to comprehend the influence of social work leaders on followers (i.e., social workers), we must first understand the nature of the relationship that already exists between leaders and followers and how this relationship or context influences whether the leader’s prototypicality or behaviour makes the followers be more likely to engage in cooperative behaviour.

2. Cooperative behaviour

Social workers are members of different social groups and work groups. Work groups are composed of group members, and leaders are members of the group. Cooperative behaviours, that can occur within a work group, are distinguished as informal and formal cooperative behaviours. Informal cooperative behaviour involves informal systems and processes such as behavioural norms that influence group members’ behaviours [8]. It is a form of voluntary behaviour. Informal cooperation is more likely to occur when parties involved perceive they will be in contact with each other for a long time, when they are under the impression that it is their advantage to cooperate and/or when they believe that they must reciprocate benefits received in the past [27]. In an organisational context, informal cooperation refers to work efforts, innovations and creativity beyond in-role performance (i.e., extra role duties not stipulated in formal contractual employment; [28]). Examples are sharing knowledge, helping a newly employed colleague or willingly working overtime to achieve the organisation’s target. In contrast, formal cooperation refers to work efforts within the in-role performance (i.e., in-role duties stipulated on the formal contractual employment; [28]). For instance, the performance agreement of a typist includes the number of pages to be typed or the number of documents that are required to be typed.

Cooperation behaviours became a focus of research when organisations introduced work structures focusing on groups or teams and allocating work activities in terms of groups (i.e., management teams, project teams and or self-managed teams; [29, 30]). Research in this tradition conceptualises cooperative behaviour as solidarity [31], solidarity behaviour [32], organisational loyalty [33, 34], organisational commitment [35], contextual performance [36], willingness to cooperate [37] and as pro-social organisational behaviour, whistleblowing, principled organisational dissent and extra-role behaviours [38, 39]. Research has shown that cooperative behaviour and/or willingness to cooperate positively predicts group and organisational outcomes such as employee performance [40] and negatively predicts employees’ resistance to organisational change [41], as well as absenteeism [42, 43]. Moreover, cooperative behaviour is a strong predictor of trust, organisational and work group effectiveness, workgroup efficiency, group goal attainment and employees’ extra-role behaviour (i.e., the extent to which employees go beyond role requirements in carrying out their jobs; see [8, 10, 44, 45]).

The willingness to engage in extra-role behaviours is promoted the most within the work group context. Social work-based work groups are made up of the group’s members (i.e., social workers), including the leaders (i.e., social work supervisors and social work managers; [46]). It is in this context where leadership processes occur, that is, “where leaders, as group members, ask followers, as group members, to exert themselves on behalf of the collective to achieve organisational or group goals” ([23]; p. 244). Leadership behaviour (e.g., skills, competencies and leadership styles) is vital for group members’ commitment to achieving group goals and work group effectiveness [47, 48]. Thus, the essential aim of leadership is to influence employees (i.e., group members or followers; [49, 50, 51, 52]). Most studies have shown that leadership behaviour predicts not only organisational outcomes (i.e., efficiency, job satisfaction, productivity and staff well-being) but also group performance by influencing the processes that govern performance [53, 54, 55, 56], strong work engagement [50, 51], perceived leader fairness and charisma [57, 58], follower’s adherence to instructions and trust [59], trust with their co-workers [60], job satisfaction [54, 61], citizenship behaviours through followers’ trust in the leader [62], decreased turn-over intentions [63], increased identification with the leader [64] and workgroup [65], commitment to change [66], follower’s self-esteem [53, 56], followers’ intentions to support group goals [67], followers’ job satisfaction, lowering burnout and lessening loneliness at work [54, 61, 68]. However, leadership as a process of social influence and social interaction (i.e., leadership or followership) does not happen in social vacuum [69]; that is, both leadership and followership are embedded in a social context [52, 70, 71]. Thus, to understand social work leadership effects, it is necessary to understand the social context in which they occur and how social work leadership behaviour is executed within the respective social contexts [52].

3. The role of social context

Social context affects how social work leaders are perceived. Research has highlighted the importance of understanding leadership as a within- and between-group process, which requires understanding the social context [24, 72, 73]. Bligh [74] emphasised the importance of understanding the social context in the development and application of leadership theory. Leadership is basically a contextual phenomenon, that is constantly developing and changing, and should be applied within a specific situation [74]. Social context can also be conceptualised as the relationship between leaders and followers (i.e., identity leadership; [73]). In this chapter, social context is conceptualised from the perspective of the relational models theory [75, 76, 77]. According to Fiske’s relational model theory ([75], p. 689), social interaction is defined “[…] as a process of seeking, making, sustaining, repairing, adjusting, judging, construing and sanctioning relationships”. It postulates that people are oriented to relationships such that people generally want to relate to each other, feel committed to the basic types of relationships, regard themselves as obligated to abide by them and impose them on other people (including third parties) (Table 1).

Aspects of social work leadership	Review summary
Leadership definition	Complex, multicontextual phenomenon.
Existing theories	No single theory adequately explains social work leadership.
Group norms	Code of ethics, social work principles and values play an important role in how leaders exercise influence on followers and in their willingness to engage in cooperative behaviour.
Aim of social work leadership	Attain cooperation from social workers, associations and stakeholders.
Proposed approach to social work leadership	Understanding social work leadership through the relational models theory [75, 76, 77] and identity leadership approach [20, 21].

Table 1.

Provides a concise summary of key concepts in social work leadership.

Note. Summarised analysis of social work leadership literature. Own work.

4. Relational models theory

The basic assumption of the relational model theory is that individual behaviour assumes social meaning only in the context of relations [75, 77, 78]. According to Fiske [75], the most basic characteristic of human beings is sociality, which implies that humans generally cognise and organise their social life in terms of their relations with other people. Relational model theory also assumes that people observe behaviours of themselves and others during the process of social interaction from which they make conclusions about the kind of social relations they are operating from [75, 76, 77].

It further assumes that, across all cultures, social relations are structured into four relational models. The combination of these models shapes people’s sense of their self (who they are) and provides structural norms and motives of relationships with others, social roles, groups and institutions [75, 76, 77]. It also urges that just “as children are biologically programmed to learn language, people are prepared to recognize and be guided by the models, which enable them to anticipate and interpret the behavior of others, coordinate social action, and make moral judgments” ([77], p. 285). Relational models theory suggests that people are generally motivated to generate, regulate and maintain relationships [75, 76, 77]. The regulation of relationships involves observing norms that govern the nature of a relationship and ensuring that they are respected and abided by all the members in a relationship. It also involves pronouncing what members within a relationship ought to do which refers to “obligations” and what they should never do which refers to “taboos” [75, 76, 77]. This regulation is vital because violation of those norms may lead to individuals within a relationship changing or even rejecting relationships [75, 76, 77].

Relational models theory distinguished four elementary relationships [75, 76, 77] as referred to communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching and marker pricing. However, this review focuses only on the communal sharing and authority ranking relationships (Table 2) [24, 25].

Aspects of relational models theory	Descriptive summary
Basic assumptions	Individual behaviour has social meaning within the context of relations. People cognise and organise their social life based on relations. People observe the behaviours of others and make conclusions about social relations through social interaction
Four relational models	Communal sharing (CA), authority ranking (AR), equality matching (EM) and market pricing (MP). People often use a combination of the four models to coordinate interactions. One model often significantly defines a given relationship This review only focuses on communal sharing and authority ranking relationships.
Characteristics of communal sharing relationship
Characteristic	Description
Social identity and collectivism	Strong sense of unity, solidarity and loyalty.
Shared norms and values	Commonalities such as profession, nationality, blood relations, romantic love, etc.
Core obligation	Caring for others and unity.
Characteristics of authority ranking relationship
Characteristic	Description
Hierarchy and power dynamics	Higher and lower rankings, power and control.
Mutual acceptance of power differences	Those with high status have decision-making authority.
Core obligation	Mutual respect.

Table 2.

A summary of key concepts in the relational models theory.

Note. Summarised literature analysis of relational models theory [75, 76, 77]. Own work.

Communal sharing (CA) relationship is defined by a sense of oneness and unity, social identity and collectivism, solidarity and loyalty [75, 76, 77]. Members of this relationship typically feel that they share something in common, such as blood, deep attraction, national identity, a history of suffering or the joy of food. Examples include nationalism, racism and intense romantic love. In a communal sharing relationship, caring for others is a core obligation, while individualism is its core taboo [75, 76, 77]. It has strong similarities with the experience of strong group identification, which is one of the predictors of cooperative behaviour.

In most organisations, leadership increasingly looks less like a hierarchy or authority [79]. Instead, it is better understood as a system of influence relationships in which multiple people participate [79]. Research has documented that followers who strongly identify with their organisation or team are more likely to view others within the organisation as a source of leadership (identity prototypicality). The results also indicated that the presence of relationships beyond hierarchal relationships within an organisation is likely to shape leader-follower relationship to a more plural form of leadership which is called shared social identity approach to leadership [79]. This means if employees of the organisation feel that they share something in common with the organisation or the team they work within, they are more likely to be influenced by their leaders and consequently see others across their organisation as sources of direction, alignment and commitment [79].

Authority ranking (AR) relationship is a hierarchy in which individuals or groups are placed in relatively higher or lower positions [75, 76, 77]. Those ranked higher have status and privilege not enjoyed by those who are ranked lower. Further, the higher ranked typically have some control over the actions of those who are ranked lower. This relationship is characterised by the mutual acceptance of power differences, which implies that the power to make decisions lies with those of high status and those of low status should be submissive (see also [80]). However, the higher ranked also have duties of protection and pastoral care for those beneath them. Examples include military rankings, the authority of parents over their children especially in more traditional societies and God’s authority over humankind. In this relationship, mutual respect is a core obligation, and disrespect of a hierarchy is a taboo [80]. Physical abuse, use of force and manipulation are not considered to be authority ranking but as toxic relationship [81]. The latter is more properly categorised as null relation in which people treat each other in non-social ways [76, 77] see also [75, 81].

This relationship is associated with a leader-follower interaction where power, authority, responsibility and respect are of equal importance for both the leader and the followers [80]. Research has shown that a leader who advocates, promotes and champions the interests of the ingroup is supported and endorsed [72]. For instance, leaders should be role models and guide followers partly based on power and status. This notion of the leader’s need for credibility as a role model is based on an AR relationship with the followers. In this kind of relationship, the followers need to understand that the leader always acts within their best interest and holds legitimate power to guide followers and to define appropriate behaviours in each situation [82].

In an AR relationship, a system justifies leaders to have more resources, for example, bigger offices and higher salaries based on the hierarchical position [82]. In return, AR leaders assume greater responsibilities in terms of guidance and protection of followers, for example, by setting a vision, providing followers with resources according to rank, establishing a clear hierarchy structure and/or maintaining a social order that is accountable for everyone [82]. In short, the guiding fairness principle of the AR elementary relationship comprises equity between power and responsibility on the one side, and rewards, on the other [82].

Furthermore, people hardly use one elementary relationship in any given situation [82]. Naturally, people use a combination of the four elementary relationships to coordinate their interactions. For example, “colleagues may share a printer freely with each other (CS), work on a project in which one of them is the expert who takes the lead (AR), divide the office space equally (EM), and sell each other working hours for an agreed amount of money (MP)” ([82], p. 47). Nevertheless, while the elementary relationships can be combined in different ways, there is often a primary elementary relationship that significantly defines a given relationship, allowing other relationships to sustain the primary elementary relationship [76, 77] see also [75, 82]. However, this chapter focuses on communal sharing and authority ranking relationships by providing an analysis on the kind of social work leaders and behaviours required to elicit and maintain cooperative behaviour.

A recent review on social work leadership has shown that leadership is an interlinking, multicontextual phenomenon. Despite the abundance of literature on leadership, no theory or approach has been able to provide a satisfactory explanation of leadership in the social work sector [4, 83]. We have proposed that social work leadership be understood within the context of the relational models theory and as a group process (i.e., identity leadership; [20, 21]) in order for social work leaders to attain cooperation from social workers, associations and different stakeholders.

5. Identity leadership approach

The identity leadership approach is based on the premise that leadership processes are embedded in a context of shared group membership where leaders, as group members, influence followers, as group members, to act on behalf of the group [20, 23]. It is further based on the premise that leadership can be conceptualised from both intra- and intergroup perspectives [20, 23, 72]. Moreover, the identity leadership approach states that, for leaders to be influential, they need to exercise influence on followers through social identity processes that can be described as four dimensional ([20]; see also [84]). The first dimension refers to what a leader should be, namely, being prototypical of the ingroup [20]. The other three dimensions refer to what a leader should do, namely, to advance ingroup needs (identity advancement), create an identity (identity entrepreneurship) and build living structures that are visible not only to the ingroup but also to the outgroup members (identity impresarioship; Table 3 [20]).

Aspects of social work leadership	Review summary
Identity leadership	Leaders are group members who influence followers to act on behalf of the group.
Four psychological dimensions (i.e., strategies)	Identity prototypicality, identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship, identity impresarioship.
Proposed approach to social work leadership	Understanding social work leadership through the relational models theory [75, 76, 77] and identity leadership [20, 21].
Group norms	Code of ethics, social work principles and values play an important role on how leaders exercise influence on followers and on their willingness to engage in cooperative behaviour.
Ultimate social work leadership goal	Attain cooperation from social workers, associations and stakeholders.

Table 3.

Summary of key concepts in the proposed relational social work identity leadership approach.

Note. Review analysis of relational social work leadership. Own work.

Different from other leadership approaches, the identity approach to leadership defines a leader as someone who is a member of the ingroup, someone who bears the title of being a leader and someone whose responsibility is to exemplify, advocate, embrace and promote rationality and thinking pattern of the ingroup [20, 85]. This approach is based on the social identity theory [20, 86] and self-categorisation theory [87]. More specifically, it is based on the following three theoretical concepts: self-categorisation, social identity and social comparison.

Self-categorisation refers to the assumption that people categorise themselves and others into social groups [86, 87]. The self-categorisation theory explains group processes and the processes involved in how people evaluate and categorise themselves into me, us and them [88]. This process is characterised by how people think of themselves and how they compare themselves to others during social interaction. More specifically, it is proposed that people tend to group the self as identical or similar to others (i.e., ingroup) while differentiating the self in contrast to others (i.e., outgroup). Moreover, self-categorisation exists at different levels of abstraction based on the principle of class inclusion ([88], p. 241). The latter means that categories differ in their level of inclusion and abstraction. For instance, dogs and cats are members of the category of animals, while animals and plants are members of the category of life. Three levels of abstraction are distinguished [88]: the first level is self-categorisation as a human being, which is based on the differentiation between humans and animals. The second level is self-categorisation as a member of social categories, which is based on the differentiation between groups of people with regard to defined characteristics (e.g., class, race, nationality, occupation). The third level is self-categorisation as a unique human being which is based on the differentiation between oneself as a unique individual with unique attributes and other individuals. Self-categorisation on a group level creates a social identity for individuals, which they internalise as an important aspect of themselves and which allows them to understand their social environment [86, 87].

Social identification refers to the extent to which people identify with a particular social group that determines their inclination to behave in terms of their group membership [89]. More specifically, social identification is when people behave according to what they think is valued by and normative for the group [90]. People conform to group norms which means that people behave the way others (i.e., members of the “ingroup” or “outgroup”) expect them to behave whether they agree with these norms or not [90]. Moreover, social identity is defined as that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership ([89], p. 63). Based on this definition, research has shown that three components contribute to one’s social identity, namely, a cognitive component (i.e., cognitive awareness of one’s membership in a social group (self-categorisation)), an evaluative component (i.e., a positive or negative value connotation attached to this group membership (group self-esteem) and an emotional component (i.e., a sense of emotional involvement with the group, i.e., affective commitment; Ellemers et al., [91]). Research has also shown that affective commitment to the group (i.e., emotional component) is the main aspect of social identity that affects people’s tendency to behave in terms of their group membership [91]. As people tend to group the self as similar to ingroup members while differentiating the self in contrast to others ([86]; see also [88]), they may also in some situations go along with the ingroup as they fear to appear as disrespectful or as they feel embarrassed to stand out as disparate or opposed to the ingroup ([76], p. 76). This may be because of social identification or the desire to belong ([76]; see also [86, 90]). Self-categorisation theory describes this process as deindividualisation. Consequently, shared social identity makes people willingly conform to group norms. It is during this process that group members develop a desire for positive distinctiveness [86].

Social comparison is the process by which group members determine the relative social standing of a particular group and its members, and devise strategies to achieve and or maintain positive distinctiveness [86]. It is a process whereby group members compare the ingroup favourably relative to other groups on specific comparison dimensions to achieve positive distinctiveness. Positive distinctiveness assumes that people are cognitively motivated to achieve positive self-esteem (i.e., they strive for a positive self-concept; [86]). People may differ on how they achieve positive distinctness depending on the nature of social identity and informed by the interpersonal-intergroup continuum as they strive to achieve or maintain positive social identity [86].

Self-categorisation, social identity and social comparison processes inform the four dimensions of identity leadership, namely, identity prototypicality, identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship and identity impresarioship [20]. The first psychological dimension refers to what a leader should be namely being prototypical of the ingroup ([20]; see also [84]). Both social identity theory and self-categorisation theory [87, 92] describe how group members cognitively represent the ingroup and members as prototypes. A prototype is a distinctive set of characteristics, attributes, values, norms and goals that define what the ingroup stands for and what differentiates the ingroup from the respective outgroup. For example, when members of a department of social work compare themselves with members of the department of psychology, they may view themselves as doing applied, practically relevant research. When comparing themselves with a graduate school of business, they may view themselves as academics who research to understand real-life issues. In the first scenario, the researcher who does the most “applied” research may be perceived as the most prototypical group member, whereas in the second scenario, the researcher who does most research on real-life issues may be perceived as the most prototypical group member. A group member is perceived as prototypical when she or he is most similar to the ingroup while at the same time most distinct from the outgroup. Research has shown that prototypical ingroup members are perceived as more influential and are more supported by the members of the ingroup ([23, 93]; see also [84]). They have also been found to positively influence group members’ status as they embody the ideal group qualities, values, norms and attributes that define what the group is about different from outgroups [94]. More specifically, exemplifying what the group is about makes group members feel special as well as distinct from other groups ([50, 51]; see also [84]).

The identity leadership approach describes a prototypical leader as a group member who best represents the group’s identity as his or her actions and decisions signal the group’s opinion [84]. For example, in a group that advocates for a professional women’s soccer league, the leader who is a woman playing soccer, with very good soccer skills and willing to compete at a professional level, is more likely to be perceived as prototypical than a woman leader who might like the game but never played it. Research has demonstrated that prototypical leaders are regarded as more effective, especially if followers identify with the group [95, 96, 97]. Leaders, who are perceived by followers as highly prototypical, may even substitute limitations of their leadership, such as acting unfairly. For instance, Ullrich et al. [85] showed that leaders’ prototypicality can act as a substitute for procedural unfairness. Even though procedural fairness, in general, has been found to have a positive influence on leader endorsement, it was found that when a prototypical leader transgressed by practicing what was regarded as highly unfair by the ingroup, followers no longer emphasised the importance of fairness in that regard [85]. These results suggest that leaders who exemplify, advocate, embrace and promote a rationality and thinking pattern that they share with their followers can continue to have their support even if they have broken some of the ingroup norms [85].

The other three dimensions refer to what a leader should do, namely, to create an identity (identity entrepreneurship), advance ingroup needs (identity advancement) and build living structures that are visible not only to the ingroup but also to the outgroup members (identity impresarioship, [20]). Identity entrepreneurship is about creating an identity for the ingroup as it is defined as the process of encouraging members of the ingroup to have a sense of oneness by minimising individual mobility. Individual mobility is one of the strategies group members can adopt to disassociate from the group and peruse individual goals designed to improve their personal self rather than that of the ingroup. Social identity theory specifies different strategies that may be invoked as group members strive to achieve positive distinctiveness [86]. In this instance, the individual choice of behaviour is deeply motivated by the perceived intergroup relations (e.g., individuals may perceive their group as less successful when compared to the outgroup). The choice of social mobility depends on the perceived legitimacy and stability of the intergroup relations (i.e., insecure intergroup relations) on the perceived permeability of group boundaries. Thus, identity entrepreneurship refers to the psychological dimension where leaders are expected to create a sense of oneness within a group and ensure a unified and positively distinct social identity (i.e., a sense of “we” or “us”). The latter can be achieved by making ingroup members feel that they are part of the same group, defining what the group stands for and its core values and norms and what the group does not stand for [20]. For example, in a team that aims at playing in a professional women’s soccer league, the team leader should not only be a woman but somebody who can communicate the vision of the group by encouraging group members to play as a team, by making them believe in themselves, by uttering statements such as women are strong, full of perseverance and winners. Thus, identity entrepreneurship is based on the actions of the leader and on what the leader says about the group (within the ingroup and to the outgroup). The effectiveness of the leader in clarifying what the group is about is considered important because it ensures that individual group members are not only motivated to categorise themselves as belonging to the group but also identify with the group and adopt group norms, goals and interests [86, 87]. Research has shown that unless followers have a sense that they are part of a common ingroup, leaders’ efforts to try to mobilise their collective energies are likely to fail [98].

The psychological dimension of identity advancement is about advancing ingroup needs. It is based on the assumptions that group members may seek positive distinctiveness and require positive differentiation through direct competition with the outgroup in the form of, for instance, social competition [86]. Social competition is a group-level strategy outlined in the social identity theory that requires group members to draw together and combine forces to help each other to maintain or improve social status, which might be in the form of joint performance or outcomes [86, 87]. More specifically, social competition is when people accept, either implicitly or explicitly, a belief or set of values and norms that lead to behaviour that is in junction with those values and norms of social comparisons that seek to confirm or to establish ingroup-favouring evaluative distinctiveness between the ingroup and outgroup, motivated by an underlying need for self-esteem ([99] as cited by [90]). In contrast, direct competition with the outgroup occurs if intergroup differences are perceived as illegitimate and/or changeable [86]. Thus, identity advancement is defined as a state where the leader should be seen promoting the shared interests of the ingroup and ensuring that the goals, ambitions and interests of the ingroup are successful and protected regardless of the circumstances. It is through identity advancement that leaders overcome failures by devising strategies for success while promoting the interests of the ingroup. It is where the leader is seen to be acting in ways that serve the ingroup, rather than personal interests or those of other outgroups [20]. For example, in a team that advocates for professional women’s soccer league, the team leader should not only be a woman and be able to articulate the vision of the group but should also come up with tactics and strategies that improve the teams’ soccer skills, or that attract sponsors. Research has shown that endorsement of a leader depends on leadership strategies that followers perceive as promoting the ingroup interest and advancing the group identity [72]. For instance, Gliebs and Haslam [72] suggested that there is significant support for a leader who advocates strategies of intergroup competition as an interactive function of the status of the ingroup. Likewise, Haslam et al. [20] proposed that leaders have more influence the more followers perceive an overlap between the group’s interests and the leader’s behaviour. Additionally, the leader who is seen as promoting and advancing the ingroup’s interests is more likely to influence the followers ([72]; see also [20]).

Lastly, the psychological dimension of identity impresarioship is defined as a state where leaders should be seen as creating ingroup-related material and delivering concrete outcomes for the group such as establishing structures, implementing practices, formalising rituals and organising events and programs that benefit the group [20]. It is about endorsing structures that enable and entrench shared understanding, coordination and success of the ingroup. It is also about shutting down structures that divide or undermine the ingroup and promoting structures that make the ingroup matter even to outgroup members [50, 51]. For example, in a team that advocates for a professional women’s soccer league, the leader should not only be a woman, able to articulate the vision of the group, develop winning tactics and source sponsors, but she should also ensure that the team has, for instance, a playground to practice on, resources (i.e., soccer jersey, good medical team and rehydrates) in all matches and that they huddle at the beginning of each match. Through identity impresarioship, the leaders’ influence is based on both actions and results. Here, the followers expect the leader to produce tangible results that can show outgroups what the ingroup is about (Table 4).

Four psychological dimensions (i.e., leadership strategies)	Descriptive summary
Identity prototypicality	Leaders are prototypical when they embody the ideal group qualities, ethics, principles and values.
Identity advancement	Leaders promote the shared interests of the ingroup and protect its goals.
Identity entrepreneurship	Leaders create a sense of oneness within the group and minimise individual mobility.
Identity impresarioship	Leaders create and deliver concrete outcomes and structures that benefit the group.

Table 4.

Summary of key concepts in the identity leadership approach.

Note. Review analysis of the identity leadership approach. Own work.

According to the identity leadership approach, leaders use all four psychological dimensions to influence and motivate followers to engage in cooperative behaviour [20]. For instance, apart from being prototypical of the ingroup, a leader needs to convey his or her vision for the group and how he or she can help the group to work towards this vision. The leader is also expected to establish structures and mechanisms that can help the group to make it possible for them to achieve their goals and interests. When followers feel that they share something in common with the leader, the ingroup is more likely to be influenced by this leader and thus see the leaders and members of the ingroup as sources of direction, alignment and commitment [79]. This means irrespective of which strategy leaders apply, the main influence of leaders on followers is through shared group norms.

Group norms for social workers mean a code of ethics, social work principles and social work values [83, 100, 101]. In a recent systematic review of social work leadership, Peters ([83], p. 102) concluded that the identity and function of social work leaders portray the example of leaders in whatever you do. (i.e., setting an example), gain acceptability by acting in a way that encourages followers to acknowledge the role of the leader (i.e., gaining acceptance), finding a path forward, expressing a clear direction, (i.e., giving direction), naming new objectives, services and structures (i.e., giving direction), having well-thought-out concepts that inspire others (i.e., offering inspiration) and utilising teams as the most efficient form of leadership by investing time in creating and fostering cooperation (i.e., building team; [100]). These correspond well with the four psychological dimensions [20, 21] of the social identity approach to leadership which states that, for leaders to be influential on followers, they need to be prototypical of the ingroup (i.e., set an example and be acceptable), advance the identity of the ingroup needs (i.e., inspirational), entrepreneur and create identity (i.e., give direction) and to be impresarios by building lived structures that are visible not only to the ingroup but also to the outgroup members (i.e., building team). Hence, in order to comprehend the influence of social work leaders on followers (i.e., social workers), it is important to understand the nature of the relationship already in place between leaders and followers, as well as how this relationship or context affects the leader identity or functions on follower’s willingness to engage in cooperative behaviour (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Relational social work identity leadership model (own work).

6. Discussion

Identity leadership assumes that leadership processes and strategies are based on the context of shared group membership ([20, 22, 102], see also [23]). Group membership is informed through a psychological process as conceptualised by the self-categorisation theory [87] and social identity theory [86]. Self-categorisation theory proposes that people categorise themselves and others into social groups [86, 87]. These social categories provide individuals with social identity [86, 87]. Social identity is what makes people (group members) prone to social influence because group members share the same values and norms ([103]; see also [104]). Identity leadership refers to a leader as someone who exemplifies, advocates, embraces and promotes a rationality and thinking pattern of the ingroup ([20, 102], see also [22, 23]). More specifically, identity leadership assumes that the leader’s effectiveness lies on the leader being perceived as prototypical of the ingroup and being viewed as “one of us” [21, 105]. Leader prototypicality refers to the extent to which a leader exemplifies ingroup characteristics [21, 22, 84, 105]. Prototypical leaders are perceived to be more effective in influencing ingroup’s attitudes [106], behaviours [23] and performance [107] by being charismatic [23]. Leader prototypicality is one of the four psychological dimensions of identity leadership, and it is regarded as an integral part of identity leadership (i.e., strong ingroup leadership; [21, 22, 105, 108]).

Prototypical leaders are perceived as representing the group’s characteristics in terms of the ingroup’s goals, values and norms to a greater extent when compared to other ingroup members [21, 22, 105]. A prototypical leader’s attitude and behaviour influence ingroup members’ perceptions and create ingroup identity by making group-based categories more relevant to group members [21, 22]. The way group norms are defined within a group determines the types of actions that are appropriate and are to be performed by the leader and group members. These actions are reliable and gain collective support to the extent that they are seen to reflect the group norms [21, 22, 105]. Prototypical leaders are skilled in advancing the identity of the ingroup as they seek to direct and reflect the norms and standards of the ingroup through group activities [20, 23].

Prototypical leaders do not just facilitate collaboration, but they carefully determine how ingroup members collaborate and what they collaborate on [22, 23, 109]. These leaders not only focus on the members of the ingroup but also lead the ingroup to cooperate or compete with other groups [22, 109]. This gives prototypical leaders more influence over the ingroup members as compared to non-prototypical leaders [110]. Hence, we assume that leader prototypicality plays a role in influencing and shaping group cooperative behaviour. Furthermore, we assume that the relational model (i.e., communal sharing or authority ranking) which dominates the leader-follower relationship influences whether who or what of a leader makes him/her influential on followers to engage in cooperative behaviour. More specifically, we prognosticate that when the communal sharing model is regarded as the dominant elementary relationship between leader and followers, identity prototypicality might be more important compared to identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship or identity impresarioship for a leader to be influential on followers. Thus, identity leadership proposes that leaders use all four psychological dimensions to influence and motivate followers [20]. For instance, apart from being prototypical of the ingroup, a leader needs to convey his or her vision for the group and how he or she can help the group to work towards this vision. The leader is also expected to establish structures and mechanisms that can help the group to make it possible for them to achieve their goals and interests. When followers feel that they share something in common with the leader, the ingroup is more likely to be influenced by this leader and thus see the leaders and members of the ingroup as sources of direction, alignment and commitment [79]. This means irrespective of which strategy leaders apply, the main influence of leaders on followers is through shared group norms. Hence, this analysis assumes that leaders who use all four psychological dimensions of identity leadership to influence and motivate followers might play a role in influencing and shaping the group cooperative behaviour. Furthermore, this analysis assumes that when authority ranking is regarded as the dominant elementary relationship between the leader and followers, identity advancement, identity entrepreneurship and identity impresarioship might be more important for a leader to be influential on followers than identity prototypicality. However, the conflict between group members’ identity and group norms may elicit social re-categorisation processes (i.e., stereotypic perceptions of dissimilar others, group within a group (i.e., subgroup) formations and intergroup biases) that may interrupt the group functioning, negatively affect ingroup identification and ultimately may affect cooperative group behaviour [111, 112]. The conflict between ingroup identification and group norms may lead to differences between group members’ identities, attributes and group norms. Finally, this analysis assumes that leaders’ violation of norms and core obligations of the dominant leader-follower relationship decreases his/her influence on followers. More specifically, leaders’ violation of norms, as well as core obligations within the communal sharing and the authority ranking model, will result in the decrease of the leaders’ influence on followers and decrease follower’s willingness to engage in the cooperative behaviour.