Page Title

Spanning Two Worlds: Social Identity and Emergent African-American Leaders

September 29, 2003 

In 2001, three African American men became CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.  Although the ascent to the apex of corporate American happens fairly frequently, it isn't often accompanied by the heralding of societal change.  Discussions of societal change ensue, however, when one speaks of Kenneth Chenault (American Express), Richard Parsons (AOL Time Warner), and Stanley O'Neal (Merrill Lynch).  Now, more than ever, many corporations in America seek to increase the diversity within their walls (Kahn, 2001).  Companies have varied reasons for pursuing diversity goals.  Ely and Thomas' (2001) typology of diversity perspectives suggest three perspectives that can possibly be applied to organizational diversity strategy:  (1) integration and learning (diversity brings insights and skills that are potentially valuable resources), (2) access and legitimacy (diversity enables organizations to gain access to legitimacy in diverse markets), and (3) discrimination and fairness (workforce diversity is a moral imperative). 

 In many ways, diversity strategies used to achieve such outcomes are impacting the complexion of corporate America.  The companies on Fortune's list are considered the top 50 corporate diversity leaders and have 'ethnic minorities holding 11% of board seats, 23% of the officials and managers, and take home 13% of the biggest paychecks' (Kahn, 2001).  Yet there is still great concern that the glass ceiling is still impenetrable.  Two interesting research questions are: Do the social identities of African-American business leaders differ from African-Americans that are not in leadership positions?  Do the social identities of African American business leaders influence perceptions of their leadership ability by other individuals - subordinates, peers and superiors?  In Bass's (1990) summary of African-American leadership research, the studies cited analyzed factors such as cognitive and interpersonal abilities, education and values.  To date, however, research on African-American leadership has not examined how social identification may influence leadership attributions.  Additionally, studies done at the group level are primarily focused on bias and the importance of a subordinate's race.  As a result, most of the literature deals with the environment external to the African-American executive-to-be.  Social identity allows an opportunity to examine individual as well as group factors that may influence the emergence of leaders.  The focus of this paper is on how others identify with them as they navigate the corporate hierarchy.

 Social identity is defined as the 'individuals knowledge that he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him/her of the group membership' (Abrams and Hogg, 1990, p.2).  Therefore, it is the groups that we belong to that form our social identity or our 'self conception as a group member.'  Abrams and colleagues (1990) and Turner (1982) conceptualize self-identity as a 'subsystem' of self-concept.  Self-concept is described 'as a collection of images which vary in terms of the length of their establishment, complexity and richness of content, etc. However, the important emphasis is that these self images can be construed as falling along a continuum with individuating characteristics at the personal extreme and social categorical characteristics at the social extreme (Abrams, et al., 1990, p.4).  One distinguishes oneself from other individuals when personal identity is relevant.

 Social identity theory posits a model of the psychology of social structure mobility.  Specifically, social identity theory says that status relationships exist between groups.  Consequently, groups are often competing for resources or power (Abrams, et al., 1990).  There are two belief orientations regarding social structure.  The 'social mobility belief structure' says the boundaries between groups are permeable.  Therefore, people may choose or work to become identified with particular groups because of resources, status or power.  The 'social change belief structure' judges that the boundaries between groups are impenetrable by individuals.  Boundaries are penetrable only through group action.

 The concept of entitativity (Campbell, 1958) claries features of groups.  Hamilton, Sherman and Lickel (1998) state that certain group features suggest entitavity or 'groupness.'  These features include proximity, similarity, common fate, inductive potential and inalterability and, thus impermeability, when considered in relationship to barrier and social mobility.

 Proposition 1:  Individuating characteristics act as antecedents to social identity and the process of establishing a social identity through personal characteristics is influenced by beliefs about social mobility such that the stronger belief in a social change belief structure, the less likely an individual will choose among possible entities.  Proposition 2:  Group entativity is an antecedent to beliefs about social mobility such that individuals who are members of groups that are high in entativity will hold more strongly to a social change belief-structure.

 Social identity theory speaks to us about the psychology of group belonging.  Self-categorization theory is concerned with the cognitive processes involved in formation of groups.  Self-categorization, therefore, is an extension of social identity theory enabling theorists to answer questions previously left unanswered.  Ely's (1994) research provides support for the Hogg's (2001) hypothesis that context may influence identification changes.  The research examined women in male dominated and sex integrated law firms and hypothesized that the lack of women in leadership positions in male-dominated firms 'may communicate to junior women that membership in their gender group is incompatible with membership in more powerful organizational groups (p.207).'

 Hogg (2001) suggests that changes in the basis of perception (individual vs. group) will have an impact on how people feel about one another.  He proposes that personal attraction is replaced by social attraction, that is, people become attracted to each other based on group membership and perceived prototypicality rather than because of individual characteristics and preferences.  Recent theoretical work has studied leadership and social identity bringing a fresh perspective to the field (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Hogg, 2001).  Generally, leadership is studied as a function of characteristics of the individual with a few notable exceptions such as leader-member exchange (Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982; Dienesch & Liden, 1986).  Hogg (2001) suggests that active influencing is accomplished through social attraction.  Social attraction is based on perceived similarity between individuals within a group (Turner, 1987).  Individuals that are socially attractive are often able to gain cooperation and compliance to suggestions and recommendations. 

 Proposition 3:  Individuals within organizations may adapt their identity to become perceived as leaders within the organization.  Proposition 4:  Individuals aspiring to leadership choose to work in contexts where they may be seen as prototypical, experience social attraction and gain attributions of leadership.  Proposition 5:  Experimenting with identities and new prototypical behavior is negatively related to entativity and a social change belief-structure. 

 The chronicle of African Americans in the United States represents an opportunity for a unique study in social identity.  The historical account is marked by racial tension and in-group/out-group polarization.  In this cultural context, two salient and powerful identities are born: American and African American.  These identities must struggle with all other conceptions of self or group.  Fifty years ago, African American leadership in a White firm was virtually impossible.  Thomas and Gabarro (1999) relate that in 1960 less than 2% of all managers in the United States were black.  As a result, African Americans established their own businesses and institutions to provide them with access to the American dream of financial independence and social status (Meier, 1966).  Turner (1975) says that intergroup relations are a competition for positive identity.  Nowhere is this more obvious than in the conflict between Blacks and Whites. 

 Based on self-identity and self-categorization theories, I propose that African-American social identity is context dependent.  Proposition 6:  Social identification as an African American will be de-emphasized by those aspiring to leadership in a majority context.  Proposition 7:  Social identification as an African American will be emphasized by those aspiring to leadership in a minority context.

 Depersonalization of self involves migrating from a self-conceptualization to conceptualization as a group member (Hogg, 1990).  Colin Powell, when faced with the reality of racism during his early days as a soldier, chose to identify his priorities - becoming enraged by racism or being successful in his Army career.  Proposition 8:  Aspiring African-American leaders will be more likely to depersonalize self in minority firms as opposed to majority firms.  Proposition 9:  Aspiring African-American leaders will be more likely to depersonalize others in minority firms as opposed to majority.

 Changes in conceptualization will have an impact on how people feel about one another leading to social attraction (Hogg, 2001).  The perceived prototypicality of group members became the basis for attraction rather than individual characteristics.  Social attraction is evident when a group member is 'liked,' considered prototypical and able to engender compliance with suggestions.  This attraction is seen with African Americans who wish to succeed in either majority or minority contexts.  Proposition 10:  Individuals that emphasize social identification as African-Americans will experience social attraction in minority (African-American) contexts while individuals that de-emphasize social identification as African Americans will experience social attraction in majority (White) contexts.  Proposition 11:  Prototypicality and social attraction interact with performance and leadership qualities to produce leadership influence.

 Leadership in a context is influenced by three processes working conjointly: prototypicality, social attraction, and attribution.  Uniting African American leadership studies with social identity paradigms may be useful in thinking about emergent leaders.  Although leadership studies generally focus on political leadership, there are lessons here that transcend academic disciplines.  Proposition 12:  African Americans that are perceived as leaders in a minority context will emphasize social identification as an African American and demonstrate prototypicality as an African American.  This identification may provide less social attraction and leadership attributions among White Americans.  Proposition 13:  African Americans that are perceived as leaders in a majority context will emphasize social identification as executives and demonstrate prototypicality as an executive.  This identification may provide less social attraction and leadership attributions among African Americans that are not executives.

 Finally, race is an inalterable entitavity factor (Campbell, 1958).  Therefore how does one remain 'true' to self and true to the ancestry that produced them?  It is false to suggest that Kenneth Chenault, Robert Parsons or Colin Powell do not claim their Black or African American heritage.  Additionally, it would be a deceptive to say that Earl Graves or Randall Robinson do not identify as Americans or executives.  The fact is that the social identity that is the most salient for each of these men differs based on differences in objectives, beliefs about social structure, context and which identity enables them to have a favorable self-concept in that context.  Proposition 14:  Successful emergent African Americans in majority context who chose an identity where race is not salient will have an 'integrated self identity' encompassing the racial identity as well as an identity aligned with the majority context.

 The emergence of African American executives in Fortune 500 corporations suggests two intriguing research questions:  Do the social identities of African-American executives differ from African-Americans that are not in leadership positions?  Do the social identities of African American business leaders influence perceptions of their leadership ability by other individuals - subordinates, peers, and superiors?  Self-identity and self-categorization theories offer some theoretical insights into these research questions.  Based on the theories presented from the literature review, I propose the following answers to these questions:  Individuating characteristics drive the choice of identity.  Identity and categorization processes influence social attraction and attributions of leadership. 

 My propositions unite individuating characteristics, social mobility beliefs, self-categorization and social identity to provide a better understanding of how minority leadership emerges in majority and minority contexts.  Additionally, future empirical research may use network methodology to provide a test of the propositions related to social attraction and prototypicality.  As American and corporations become more ethically diverse an understanding of the role of self-concept, social identity and group membership in the emergence of minority leadership will continue to spawn important organizational questions.  The integration of these concepts may provide a catalyst for research and, subsequently, advances in practice (Rodriguez, Green & Ree, 2003, p. 56-66)."

_____________________________________________________________

Reference: Slay, H.S. (2003).  Spanning two worlds: social identity and emergent african-american leaders.  The Journal of Leadership Studies, 9, No 4.

The Journal of Leadership Studies is available on loan from the OSU Leadership Center.  A complete listing of all the Leadership Center's resources is available on our website http://leadershipcenter.osu.edu

 FYI: the OSU Leadership Center is funded by OSU Extension.

Leadership Discoveries is a free monthly e-mail mailing about leadership research.  If you have any colleagues who would like to receive Leadership Discoveries, please have them send an e-mail message to flynn.61@osu.edu with the message, Subscribe Leadership Discoveries.

Back to Top >

Created: 2008-01-09, Updated: 2009-02-17