Narrative Leadership Leading Change

Implicit Leadership and Categorization Theories

In brief, Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) says we hold mental prototypes that are ideal instances of leadership. When an individual meets our mental criteria, whether or not they identify as a leader, we’re inclined to see them as such. In conjunction with this is Categorization Theory (CT) that suggests we will evaluate leaders who match these internal images more favorably than those who don’t. In the first are the reasons we accept leadership and the second the mechanisms that make acceptance possible.

Our recognizing leadership seems to occur, in part, by the information we receive, interpret, store, recall, modify, and act on. In fact, what are thought as mental images may not be static images at all but constructs that emerge in the moment based on context, history, and the qualities of the people involved. Whether we recognize leadership from stored images or the ability to create them some of the more important variables that make those images are our personality, the similarity of the leader to ourselves, and the traits of our family.

Personality and Similarity
In regards to leadership, personality is discussed along five axis: “(1) Agreeableness - the tendency to be sympathetic and helpful to others; (2) Conscientiousness - the tendency to be reliable and punctual; (3) Extroversion - the tendency to be active and talkative; (4) Openness - the tendency to be open to ideas; and (5) Neuroticism - the tendency to experience guilt and irrational ideas” (Keller, 1990). In exploring the thought that we choose leaders most like us Keller tested the personality traits of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extroversion and found that we use them implicitly to determine suitability for leadership. Here agreeableness determines the value we place upon a leader’s sensitivity, conscientiousness the value we place upon a leader’s dedication; and extroversion the value we place upon a leader’s charisma. In other words, the extent to which we’re agreeable, conscientious, and extroverted is roughly the same that we look for in our leaders. This scheme or way of working is inward to us and implicit in how we choose people to lead others or us. But where do we get the first images?

The Traits of our Family
Parents are the first leaders we see and as such role models that codify leadership for us. It is in our family unit that we observe the first instances of leading and following and while this isn’t the only source for leadership prototypes it is an important one. The susceptibility to parental influence is enhanced by two conditions: a) Our preference for familiar behavior and b) our assigning value to behavior by its outcome, i.e., a parent yells and get his/her way, since getting what you want is good we deduce that yelling is good. The fact that yelling isn’t socially acceptable loses importance to what is familiar, in this case, the parent yelling and the “good” result it produces. Yes, that’s simple, maybe too simple but it does communicate an important truth about ourselves: We’re impressionable to what benefits us. Through this ready lens of impressionable self we concretize the images of leadership portrayed by our parents, particularly when the parent is overbearing. In the same work mentioned above, Keller also discovered that parental traits of manipulation and dominance are more likely to be internalized as acceptable images of good leadership while that of compassion less so.

This isn’t to say the only images we take from our family are those of dominance, far from it. While these do impress us and are retained in our thinking others are likewise formed, especially those built around our perceptions of parental behavior as opposed to the actual behavior. Interestingly, Hartman and Harris found that regardless the behavior a parent reported as their own, the child’s perception of the parents’ behavior is that modeled in their leadership.

This makes it essential that the leader have understanding of the stories that give shape to the lives of those s/he purports to lead. It also requires that the narrative undertaking be entered into aware that leadership will mean something different to each member. There is acknowledgment of this possibility in Implicit Leadership Theory where members determine the effectiveness of leadership by comparing the leader’s effort against their own internal model of what an effective leader is. The stories of our life do produce memories but also templates by which we know and understand. Learning them before attempting change, while slowing our effort to “get there,” helps make the transition a more humane affair.

Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 590-607.