Have you ever been in a position where your views differ with those of your leader’s? Most of us can relate to this at some point in our careers; having different opinions to those of your leader’s can lead to a healthy debate and can be an opportunity to challenge ideas and drive innovation. This aspect of debate and challenge is one of the most valued aspects of developing a diverse workforce. What happens though when you’re the leader and the diversity of thought results in a fundamental misalignment of long term goals or behaviors? You just don’t see eye to eye and can’t personally identify with your team followers (team or employees).
According to a 2013 paper by Weichun Zu et al, limited personal identification between leaders and followers can have a negative effect – not only in terms of leadership effectiveness, but also in the team’s ability to innovate and their commitment to the organization. The authors present a compelling argument; rather than focus on the impact of organizational identification on employees, we should focus more on the effectiveness of individuals personally aligning with leaders.
Organizational identification, first introduced in 1987 by Cheney and Tompkins, is usually experienced when decision makers select the option which “best promotes the perceived interests of that organization”. The advantages of high organizational identification include greater job satisfaction, improved cooperation and reduced absenteeism. What Zu et al found, is that personal identification results in these benefits too but with greater impact.
This case is supported by a research study published by Hobman et al in 2011 which highlights this difference between organizational and personal identification. The study found that “identification with the leader significantly mediated the positive associations between supportive leadership, intellectual stimulation, personal recognition, in the prediction of job satisfaction and job performance”. While identifying with individuals can have a positive impact, the authors didn’t find the impact to be as great when followers identified with the organization as a whole.
Effective leadership on an individual level is therefore critical to an organization’s success. This even more important in today’s relatively buoyant market where long term commitment to the organization such as high retention rates, is harder to come by. What does this mean for today’s leaders?
Thomas Sy, Professor of Psychology at University of California Riverside, shows how a leader’s perception of his or her followers can have a negative impact when trying to recruit a diverse workforce. In his paper, “What do you think of followers?” and in an interview with Science Daily, Sy highlights the risks around categorizing followers (most often done automatically and spontaneously). “Western leaders may recognize the potential of followers who show enthusiasm, and label and treat these individuals as ‘high potentials.’ However, Western leaders may overlook the same potential in equally capable followers who may not exhibit enthusiasm because their cultural values may inhibit expression of emotions (e.g. Eastern cultures such as Japan and China). This bias may also occur for gender.” Simply put, leaders are individually accountable for the diversity of their workforce, not just the organization’s bottom line.