The Spanish Journal of Psychology Copyright 2009 by The Spanish Journal of Psychology

2009, Vol. 12, No. 2, 667-676 ISSN 1138-7416

Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations of Nicaragua and

El Salvador: A Study from the Social Identity Theory

Juan Antonio Moriano León1, Gabriela Topa Cantisano1,

and Jean-Pierre Lévy Mangin2
1Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (Spain)
2Université du Québec (Canada)

This study follows the social identity model of leadership proposed by van Knippenberg
and Hogg (2003), in order to examine empirically the mediator effect of leadership
prototypicality between social identity, extra effort, and perceived effectiveness of group
members. The sample consisted of 109 participants who worked in 22 different work-
teams of non-profit organizations (NPO) from Nicaragua and El Salvador. The data
analysis was performed through structural equation modeling (SEM). The results show
that NPO membership is related to a high level of social identity. In addition, the results
confirmed that leadership prototypicality has a significant and positive mediator effect
in the relationship between the group identification and the group members’ extra effort
and the perceived effectiveness of leadership.
Keywords: leadership, social identity, prototypicality, extra effort, effectiveness.

El presente estudio toma como referencia el Modelo de la Identidad Social del Liderazgo
(SIMOL) de van Knippenberg y Hogg (2003), con el objetivo de contrastar empíricamente
el efecto mediador de la prototipicidad del líder entre la identificación con el grupo de
trabajo, y la eficacia percibida del líder y el esfuerzo extra de los miembros del grupo.
La muestra está formada por 109 personas que trabajaban en 22 grupos diferentes
pertenecientes a Organizaciones No Lucrativas (ONL) de Nicaragua y El Salvador. El
análisis de los datos se realizó mediante el Modelado de Ecuaciones Estructurales
(SEM). Los resultados revelan que la pertenencia a ONL de Nicaragua y El Salvador
promueve altos niveles de identificación grupal, y, asimismo, se confirma que la
prototipicidad del líder tiene un significativo efecto mediador entre la identificación grupal,
y la eficacia percibida del líder y el esfuerzo extra de los miembros del grupo.
Palabras clave: liderazgo, identidad social, prototipicidad, esfuerzo extra, eficacia.

This article was funded as part of the actions to aid the dissemination of the Research Promotion Plan of the UNED. The authors wish
to thank Alfonso Pérez for his contribution in collecting the data.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Juan Antonio Moriano León, Dpto. de Psicología Social y de las
Organizaciones, Facultad de Psicología, UNED.C/ Juan del Rosal 10 (Ciudad Universitaria). Madrid, 28040 (Spain). Phone: +34-
913988251; E-mail: jamoriano@psi.uned.es

667
668 MORIANO, TOPA, AND LÉVY
The approach of Social Identity Theory (hereafter, SIT)
developed originally as a theory about intergroup relations
(Turner, 1982), but, in recent years, there has been increasing
interest in its application to group processes in organizations
(Hogg, 2001). Identification with the work group can lead
individuals to adopt as their own the interests and goals of
the collective, so that people would be mainly interested
in the group goals instead of their own individual interests,
which would be less relevant, as revealed in empirical studies
that provide evidence of the relation between identification
and efforts for the benefit of the group (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; van Knippenberg, 2000).
With regard to the process of leadership, SIT argues that
prior theories of leadership have not granted importance to
the fact that leaders are also members of the groups they
direct and that, therefore, the characteristics of the leaders
as members of a group, and more specifically, their higher
or lower prototypicality, affects the effectiveness of the group
(van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Thus, leadership is not
only an issue of leaders, or even of leaders and followers.
Rather, it involves the relation between leaders and followers
within a social group (Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005).
From these initial proposals, the goal of this study was
to contrast empirically, in various nonprofit organizations
(NPOs) of Nicaragua and El Salvador, the predictions of
the SIT and, more specifically, the Social Identity Model
of Leadership (hereafter, SIMOL) of van Knippenberg and
Hogg (2003) concerning group identification and the effects
of prototypicality in the perceived effectiveness of leadership
and the group members’ extra efforts.
Leadership from the theory of social identity
Leadership is a phenomenon that occurs in all human
groups and that has captured the interest of thinkers and writers
from all cultures for hundreds of years. Currently, four
important aspects of leadership are acknowledged (Molero,
2004): (a) that leadership is not a trait or static characteristic
residing only in the leader, but a process that takes place
over time, in which the leader, the followers, and the situation
in which leadership is exercised are interactively involved;
(b) leadership involves influence, that is, what characterizes
leaders is their ability to influence the other group members;
(c) leadership is a group phenomenon that loses its meaning
outside of this context; and (d) the leader’s influence aims to
obtain a goal or common objective of the group.
From the SIT perspective, leadership depends on the
existence of a social identity shared by the group members.
Without such an identity, nothing unites leaders and followers
and, therefore, there would not be sufficient consensus for
a leader to represent the group. Thus, the SIMOL underlines
the fact that leaders are not only leaders of groups of people,
but also members of these groups, emerging complementarily,
and that group membership has a strong impact on the
attitude and behavior of the group members.
This perspective of leadership led Reicher et al. (2005)
to consider the relation between leaders and followers as
one of partners and collaborators in the transformation of
the social reality. According to these authors, the traditional
models consider leadership as a kind of zero-sum game,
in which the influence of the leader is achieved at the
expense of the followers’ influence and vice versa. In
contrast to this viewpoint, leadership is a process of
collective social influence, in which leaders and followers
are partners. Thus, the salient social identity makes leadership
possible and, in turn, leaders’ actions reproduce and promote
the social identity and, therefore, make their own
leadership—feasible (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003),
The SIT proposes the group prototypes are configured
to maximize the proportion or ratio of between-group and
within-group differences within a particular comparison
context (Hogg, 1993; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Thus, they
underline what “we” share and what makes us different
from “the others,” to maximize the extent to which the group
is a clear and different entity. So, the process of influence
is related to the concept of prototypicality and is explained
by membership or belonging to the group, by means of
which, the members let themselves be influenced by the
group prototype and, in turn, the prototype is influenced
by the group members and the context.
In groups with high identification, the members are very
sensitive to prototypicality as the basis for self-perception
and perception of other group members. In fact, they notice
and respond to subtle differences in the degree of
prototypicality of the members that form the group (Hogg,
2001). The essential prediction of the SIMOL is that the
higher the identification of the members with their group,
the more their perception, assessment, and approval of the
leader will be influenced by his prototypicality and, in turn,
the more likely the prototypical members will emerge as
leaders (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003).
Ultimately, in groups with high group identification, the
prototypical members will become effective leaders more
easily and the leaders will be more effective if they use
their prototypical credentials. Following these considerations,
we suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a: the identification of the members with the
group is positively related to the leader’s prototypicality.
The effectiveness of leadership has been assessed in
diverse studies through two main variables: perceived
efficacy and extra effort (Bass & Avolio, 2000). Firstly,
perceived efficacy refers to the followers’ perception of
the leader’s efficacy to conduct and represent the group,
as well as to meet the requirements and expectations of
the organization. According to SIT perspective, leadership
is understood as a group phenomenon that appears when
the members identify with the group. When people identify
with the group, they are more easily influenced and are
more motivated to cooperate with the leader, because the
 LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
leader’s behavior is mainly aimed at achieving group goals
and at representing the group (Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998).
In contrast, when people do not identify with the group,
but act independently, then the leader’s role may be less
important, because it is no longer a matter of achieving
group goals, but individual goals. According to this
reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1b: group identification is positively related to
the leader’s perceived efficacy.
Secondly, extra effort is operationalized through extra-
role (undetermined) behaviors that the diverse group
members are prepared to perform to achieve the group goals.
To the degree to which people identify more with their work
group, it is more likely for them to adopt the interests and
goals of the group as their own. This implies that people
will be more interested in the group goals than in their own
personal concerns and that the latter would be more
irrelevant, as revealed in empirical studies that provide
evidence of the relation between identification and efforts
for the benefit of the group (Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers,
2002; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). According to this proposal,
we suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1c: group identification will be positively
related to the members’ extra effort.
The most essential prediction of SIT is that the more
the members identify with the group, the higher leadership
effectiveness will be based on the degree of the leaders’
prototypicality (Hogg & Terry, 2000; van Knippenberg &
Hogg, 2003). This has been confirmed in laboratory studies
of emerging leadership (Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Hogg
et al., 1998). According to Hogg and Terry (2000), this
process is explained by three aspects:
1) Prototypicality becomes a seedbed for attitudinal and
behavioral depersonalization when the members
identify with the group. Thus, the leader becomes
the personification of the aspirations, attitudes, and
behaviors of the group.
2) The more prototypical members are more socially
attractive than the less prototypical members. This
implies that the leader is socially attractive to the
group members and, therefore, they tend to agree
with and to try to please the leader.
3) Group members tend to attribute the social attraction
and influence that leaders exert over the group to
the leaders’ personality characteristics, rather than
to their prototypical position within the group. When
this attribution error is maintained over time, the
leader is considered to have a charismatic personality.
Such prototypicality-based leadership can be very effective
and mutually satisfactory for leaders and followers, because
there is no need to be coercive, as the change in attitude
and the influence occur automatically by means of the process
of depersonalization associated with group identification.
669
Figure 1. Summary of the study hypotheses. H = Hypothesis.
Depersonalization leads people to enter fully into collective
behavior, as their perception and performance are no longer
those of a mere singular person, but of a person who feels
like a member of a group with which he or she identifies
(Morales, 2002). Following these arguments, we expect that
the leader’s prototypicality mediates partially the relationship
between group identification and leadership effectiveness
(consisting of the group members’ perception of the efficacy
of their leader and their extra effort to achieve the group
goals). Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: The relation between group identification
and the leader’s perceived efficacy is partially mediated
by the leader’s prototypicality.
Hypothesis 2b: The relation between group identification
and the extra effort of the group members is partially
mediated by the leader’s prototypicality.
In Figure 1 is displayed the structural model that
represents the relations predicted in this study. In this model,
there is one exogenous latent variable (group identification)
and three endogenous latent variables (leader’s prototypicality,
leader’s perceived efficacy, and group members’ extra effort).
Method
Participants
The sample of this study consisted of 109 people, who
carried out tasks in 22 work groups with a mean of 5
members in each group. The participants were of three
nationalities: 10 Spaniards, 74 Nicaraguans, and 25
Salvadorans. Of the sample, 49.5% were men, with a mean
age of 32.06 years (SD = 8.17), and a mean duration in
the organization of approximately 3 years (M = 30.43
months, SD = 28.02 months) and 2 years membership in
their work group (M = 24.40 months, SD = 21.47).
In this study participated a total of 14 NPOs from
Nicaragua and 8 from El Salvador. The types of
organizations were as follows: Spanish NGOs in El
Salvador (22%), Salvadoran NGOs (16.5%), municipal
town halls (10.1%); Nicaraguan NGOs (33.9%), and others
– basically Nicaraguan schools (17.4%). Lastly, the
670 MORIANO, TOPA, AND LÉVY

educational and professional levels were relatively high,
no doubt because of the minimal demands requested in
these organizations to have access to a remunerated job.
Specifically, 55% had university studies and 88% had
studies equal to or higher than high school and professional
training. With regard to participants’ professional level in
the study, 50.5% had jobs that were equal to or higher
than Area and/or Projects Technician and medium level
professionals.
Measures
Below are described the diverse scales and measures
included in the questionnaire used in this study.
Bibliographical data. In the first part of the questionnaire,
participants were asked their age, sex, nationality, type of
organization, educational and professional level.
Group identification. Identification with the work group
is considered a specific form of social identity in work
spheres. The degree of social identity with the work group
was assessed with two scales. Firstly, a Graphic Group
Identification Scale (GGIS), adapted from the graphic scale
of Shamir and Kark (2004), was used to assess the degree
of the person’s identification with the work group with a
single item (see Figure 2). Participants were asked to indicate
the square which best reflected their degree of identification
with their work group on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (completely separate circles) to 7 (overlapping
circles). Secondly, a Group Identification Scale (GIS), made
up of 7 items, ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 4
(completely agree), adapted from the scales of Henry, Arrow,
and Carini (1999), and van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher, and
Christ (2004), was also used. The reliability of this scale
was moderately satisfactory with a Cronbach alpha value
of .66. The items that decreased the internal consistency
were deleted and a new scale made up of 3 items was
obtained, with satisfactory reliability (α = .70). The items
were the following: (1) “I feel identified as a member of
the work group,” (2) “I like to work for my group,” and
(3) “I enjoy dealing with the members of this work group.”
These sentences focus mainly on the affective aspects of
identification and make up a complementary measurement
of the GGIS.
Leader prototypicality. As with social identity, we used
two different types of scales to assess the leader’s
prototypicality. Firstly, we used a Graphic Scale of Leader’s
Prototypicality in the Group (GLP) that was specifically
developed for this research (see Figure 3). Secondly, a
new scale was developed to measure the leader’s
prototypicality according to the SIMOL. On this scale,
participants indicated, on a 5-point Likert-scale ranging
from 0 (not at all) to 4 (completely), the degree to which
the person in charge of their work group: (a) represents
the most characteristic traits of the group, (b) would be
elected by the group members to represent the group before
others; (c) is well-liked by the group members, and (d)

Figure 2. Graphic Group Identification Scale (Shamir & Kark, 2004).

Figure 3. Graphic Scale of Leader Prototypicality in the Group

Note. The instructions of this scale were: “In the following chart, the degree to which the person in charge of the work group represents
the group is assessed. Below, you will find 7 rectangles with 2 circles: one represents the person in charge (R) and the other represents the
group you belong to (G). In the first rectangle, the circles are very far apart and they represent a situation in which the person in charge is
very remote from the group and, therefore, does not represent group identity. In contrast, in the last rectangle, the person in charge is at
the center of the group and, therefore, is the most representative member. Your task is to choose from the 7 rectangles the one that best
reflects the degree to which you consider that the person in charge represents the characteristics of the group”.
 LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS 671

personifies the most positive values of the group. The Results

reliability of this scale was satisfactory, as it reached a
Cronbach alpha of .89.
Perceived leadership effectiveness. The scales of the
leader’s perceived efficacy and followers’ extra effort of
the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire, short form 5x
(MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2000), were used. The scale of the
leader’s perceived efficacy was made up of 3 items and its
reliability was satisfactory (α = .79). Likewise, the scale
of the followers’ extra effort was made up of 3 items and
obtained satisfactory reliability (α = .82).
Procedure
Once the questionnaire had been elaborated and taking
into account that it would be administered to a different
cultural sample than the Spanish one, a pilot study was
carried out. In this pilot study, we found that participants
were concerned about their anonymity, because some items
were focused on their superiors and they feared the latter
might have access to the results of the questionnaire. This
situation led us to include the following paragraph in the
introduction of the questionnaire: “The data you provide
is completely confidential and anonymous, therefore, do
not be concerned about responding sincerely.”
We should clarify that although the sample was made
up of people who belonged to the work groups, the level
of analysis was individual, as there were no within-group
measures.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out to assess
reliability and validity of the scales used in this research.
Firstly, we analyzed convergent validity, which is
determined by the statistical significance of the factor
loadings of the indicators of each construct. This means
that for a probability of .05, the critical ratio (CR) should
be higher than 1.96. Moreover, the standardized factor
loadings of each indicator in the latent variable on which
it saturates should be higher than .40 (Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 2005). As shown in Table 1, all the
standardized loadings and CRs exceed the recommended
minimum levels of .40 and 1.96, respectively.
Secondly, the composite reliability coefficient was
calculated because it is more adequate than the Cronbach
alpha, as it does not depend on the attributes associated with
each concept. Normally, it is recommended that this statistic
reach a value of .70, although some authors maintain that
values over .60 are sufficient (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). As shown
in Table 1, all the composite reliability coefficients exceed
.70. However, the average variance extracted (AVE) reflects
the total quantity of variance of the indicators captured by
the latent construct. The higher their value, the more
representative are the indicators of the construct on which
they load. In general, it is suggested that its value should
not exceed .50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). In this study, the

Table 1
Results of the confirmatory factor analysis
Construct / Indicator Standardized factor loading CR Reliability Extracted variance
1. Group identification .73 .40
GGIS .64 —
II .60 5.07
I2 .60 5.06
I3 .69 5.49
2. Prototypicality .89 .63
P1 .89 —
P2 .87 12.57
P3 .75 9.56
P4 .80 10.70
GLP .64 7.78
3. Extra effort .82 .61
EE1 .86 —
EE2 .80 9.02
EE3 .68 7.24
4. Perceived efficacy .81 .58
PE1 .86 —
PE2 .65 7.13
PE3 .77 8.80
672 MORIANO, TOPA, AND LÉVY

variance of prototypicality, perceived efficacy, and extra effort
exceeded .50, whereas the variance of group identification
only reached .40 (see Table 1).
To assess discriminant validity between the constructs,
the square root of the mean extracted variance should be
higher than the correlation between constructs (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981; Lévy-Mangin, 2003). Table 2 presents the
correlations between the constructs and, along the diagonal,
the square root of the mean extracted variance. In view of
these data, the constructs assessed in the model have
discriminant validity, although they are all closely related.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The results of the study show high levels of identification
of the members with their work group and high prototypicality
of the group leader (see Table 2). Specifically, a mean score
of 3.20 for group identification and of 2.61 for prototypicality
(for response intervals from 0 to 4) was found. The
correlations between the variables of this study provide support
for the hypotheses proposed in this work. As shown in Table
2, group identification had a high and significantly positive
correlation both with prototypicality and with perceived
efficacy and extra effort. Likewise, the prototypicality showed
high, positive, and significant correlations with perceived
efficacy and extra effort.
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural equation modeling was used to contrast the
second hypothesis of this work. For this purpose, the fit of
a first model is assessed, with only the influence of group
identification on the followers’ perception of efficacy and
extra effort, represented in Figure 1, which includes the
mediation of the leader’s prototypicality. In both models,
control variables such as nationality and duration in the
work group were also included.
The AMOS 6.0 program was used because it offers the
possibility of assessing diverse relations simultaneously
and is particularly adequate for small samples (Arbuckle
& Wothke, 1999). The analyses were carried out using the
matrix of the original data as input and the maximum
likelihood procedure. Diverse indexes were suggested to
test the goodness of fit of the model (Lévy-Mangin, 2003),
such as the chi-square statistic, c2, the value of which should
be nonsignificant (p >.05) in order to indicate that the
proposed model fits the data. Due to the sensitivity of the
chi-square statistic to sample size and the deviations from
normality of the data, other absolute fit indexes were
proposed, such as c2/degrees of freedom, where values lower
than 2 indicate a good fit, and the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA), which is a measure of model
discrepancy by degrees of freedom, whose values should
be lower than .05 to indicate a good fit. Likewise, we used
the relative comparative fit index (CFI), whose threshold
value is .95 to consider that the proposed model has a good
fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995). Table 3 shows the fit statistics of
both models proposed in this study.
The first model, which only shows the direct influence
of group identification, had adequate goodness-of-fit statistics,
but it only explained 27% of the variance of perceived efficacy
and 39% of the variance of extra effort. The second model,

Table 2
Descriptive statistics, correlations among the variables and AVE
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Nationality — —
2. Duration in the group 24.40 21.47 –.15 —
3. Group identification 3.20 0.56 .02 .07 .63
4. Prototypicality 2.61 0.92 –.06 .02 .53** .79
5. Extra effort 2.47 0.91 –.14 .06 .47** .59** .78
6. Perceived efficacy 2.69 0.89 –.11 –.02 .39** .69** .66** .76

Note. Response scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (completely); along the diagonal of the correlations is the square root of the
average variance extracted (AVE).
** p < .01.

Table 3
Measures of the fit of the model
Model χ2 (d.f.) p CMIN/DF RMSEA CFI
Model with only direct effects on identity 53.2 (46) .217 1.15 .04 .98
Model with effects mediated by prototypicality 128.4 (107) .078 1.20 .04 .97

Note. CMIN/DF = χ2/degrees of freedom; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation; CFI = Comparative fit index.
 LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
where prototypicality acts as a mediating variable, not only
presented adequate goodness of fit, but in addition, the
percentage of explained variance in each of the criteria was
higher. In Figure 4, group identification is observed to
significantly affect the leader’s prototypicality and it explained
48% of its variance, so that, the higher the degree identification
of the members with their group, the more the leader is
considered to represent the group. In turn, prototypicality
significantly affected perceived efficacy and the group
Figure 4. Standardized estimations for the proposed models.
673
members’ extra effort, explaining, respectively, 62 and 50%
of the variance of these variables. Moreover, the leader’s
prototypicality acts as a total mediating variable, because
the effects of group identification on perceived efficacy and
extra effort were no longer significant in this second model.
Lastly, we confirmed that the control variables, nationality
and duration in the group, had no significant relation with
group identification, nor did they significantly affect the
leader’s prototypicality, extra effort, and perceived efficacy.
674 MORIANO, TOPA, AND LÉVY
Discussion
The results of this study reveal that group identification
positively affects the leader’s perceived efficacy and the
extra effort of the members of NPOs’ work groups in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. These results provide empirical
support to the predictions of the SIT about the leadership
process (Hogg, 2001; Reicher et al., 2005; van Knippenberg
& Hogg, 2003), as they indicate that group identification
leads individuals to adopt as their own the goals of the
group, so that people make an extra effort for the benefit
of the group and they acknowledge the leader’s efficacy
to lead and represent the group.
The findings also show that the influence of group
identification on leadership effectiveness is totally mediated
by the group leader’s prototypicality. Thus, the more the
members identify with their group, the more leadership
effectiveness is based on the degree to which the leader is
perceived as the group prototype. This particular result
exceeds our hypotheses, because we only expected to find
a partial mediation of the leader’s prototypicality. The
explanation may be found in the disproportionate influence
that the prototypical leader has on the group members
through diverse mechanisms such as social attraction,
attribution of charisma, etc. (Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg
& Hogg, 2003). However, the leaders do not fulfill a passive
function when they are defined as such by the processes
of social identity, but instead they intervene actively creating
and redefining the contents of the group identity, which
produces a transformation in their followers. In fact, the
leaders’ activity is not limited to words and ideas, but also
extends to the initiation of structures that can make those
ideas manifest (Reicher et al., 2005).
With regard to other theories of leadership, the results
of this study support the idea that the influence of
transformational leadership on the efficacy of work teams
(Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Molero,
Cuadrado, Navas, & Morales, 2007), especially their
charisma factor, is partially due to the leader’s prototypicality
(Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). In fact,
using the measures of leadership effectiveness proposed
by Bass and Avolio (2000), the results of this study show
that the leader’s prototypicality explains one half of the
variance of extra effort and 62% of the variance of the
leader’s perceived efficacy.
Limitations of the Study
The results of this study are limited by several factors.
Firstly, the participants were not selected by random
procedures and they only belonged to NPOs from Nicaragua
and El Salvador, which limits the ability to generalize the
results of this study to other kinds of organizations and
countries. Also, the sample size was relatively small, so
this study should be replicated with a larger and more diverse
sample. Secondly, it would be appropriate to have a broader
array of measures to test a more complete model. Among
such measures could be considered diverse focal points of
identification, such as the complete organization, the
department, the work group, or the profession. In this sense,
one could explore whether these different ways of
identification significantly affect leadership effectiveness
in any way, as well as followers’ extra effort. Regarding
leader prototypicality, it should be taken into account that
it is a new measurement developed specifically for this
study and, therefore, it is necessary to carry out studies
that allow generalizing its use.
Implications of the Study
The results of this study shows that promoting and
facilitating high work group identification and high leader
prototypicality can be a great investment and a highly
pertinent decision for the management of any type of NPO.
Specifically, team leaders can promote high identification
with the work group through the establishment of
collective goals. As noted by van Knippenberg and
Ellemers (2004), the individual systems of incentives not
only have a limited capacity to induce employers’
performance but, in addition, they reduce the investments
of the group members in behaviors that serve group
interest, because the members focus on merely individual
concerns and goals.
With regard to increase leader’s prototypicality, van
Knippenberg and Hogg (2003) describe how the leaders
try to seem more like a team member, and to describe
themselves as prototype of their groups. For this purpose,
leaders may use emblems and symbols that represent the
group, and focus their work on group goals, even going so
far as to make personal sacrifices for the group. For example,
they dress like the rest of the team members, they eat at
the same place, park their car in the same parking lot, and
participate in activities with the rest of the group outside
of working hours.
However, group identification and leader prototypicality
cannot be conceived as simple “technical” tools in Human
Resources management without further critical analyses or
contextualizations. For example, groups can develop
counterproductive rules when there is a conflict between
the leader and members and/or when the organization is
perceived as exploitive or unproductive (Topa & Morales,
2006). In another context, the implicit rule in a certain
environment may be to do as little as possible and leave
as soon as possible and, in this case, the higher the group
identification, the less productivity (van Knippenberg, 2000).
Moreover, leaders are not the exclusive owners of social
identity nor are the followers passive consumers of the
leader’s prototypicality. Followers frequently reject leaders
who have violated or broken the contents of their own social
identity (Haslam & Platow, 2001).
 LEADERSHIP IN NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
This study can also contribute to the previous research
on the extra-role behaviors, in particular about organizational
citizenship behavior (hereafter, OCB). The leader’s
prototypicality may affect the group members’ OCB through
various mechanisms. Firstly, the leader’s prototypicality
will cause the group members’ most significant and
important behaviors to become characteristic and
prototypical, because they fit the general framework of
group performance and reinforce the feeling that the group,
as a whole, is advancing towards a common goal (Organ,
Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006). Secondly, leader
prototypical can provide the group members with an
appropriate model that will promote the OCBs in various
ways. On the one hand, the leader becomes a model of
behavior and thus serves to establish the rules or expectations
of appropriate work behavior, increasing the probability
that the employees will feel obliged to display such civic
behaviors (Organ et al., 2006). On the other hand, as
mentioned, prototypical leaders can promote cooperative
behaviors, which are part of the OCBs, because they
encourage employees to work together towards a common
goal. Thus, we increase the perception of a shared identity
and the probability that efforts aimed at individual interests
will be given up in order to devote one’s efforts toward
more altruistic behaviors, which are forms of OCBs.
An interesting aspect to explore in future studies is the
probability that trust is the key mediator in the relationship
between leader prototypicality and the group members’
OCB. Some studies on the paradigm of transformational
leadership suggest interesting results along these lines (Pillai,
Schriesheim, & Williams, 1999; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990).
References
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User’s Guide.
Chicago: Small Waters.
Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
16, 74-94.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2000). MLQ-Multi-Factor Leadership
Questionnaire, technical report. Redwood City, CA: Mind
Garden.
Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity as
both cause and effect: The development of group identification
in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup
status hierarchy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41,
57-76.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error:
Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39-50.
675
Hains, S. C., Hogg, M. A., & Duck, J. M. (1997). Self-
categorization and leadership: Effects of group prototypicality
and leader stereotypicality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23, 1087-1100.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2005).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership
and followership: How affirming social identity translates
vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
27, 1469-1479.
Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model
of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group
Research, 30, 558-581.
Hogg, M. A. (1993). Group cohesiveness: A critical review and
some new directions. European Journal of Social Psychology,
4, 85-111.
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184-200.
Hogg, M. A., Hains, S. C., & Mason, I. (1998). Identification
and leadership in small groups: Salience, frame of reference,
and leader stereotypicality effects on leader evaluations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1248-1263.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts. The
Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues
and applications. (pp. 77-100). London: Sage.
Lévy-Mangin, J. P. (2003). Análisis multivariable para las ciencias
sociales. Madrid.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996).
Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic review. The Leadership Quarterly,
7, 385-425.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A
partial test of the reformulated model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-
123.
Molero, F. (2004). El liderazgo. In C. Huici (Ed.), Psicología de
grupos I (pp. 141-169). Madrid: UNED.
Molero, F., Cuadrado, I., Navas, M., & Morales, J. F. (2007).
Relations and effects of transformational leadership: A
comparative analysis with traditional leadership styles. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10, 358-368.
Morales, J. F. (2002). Nuevos desarrollos en identidad social. In
J. F. Morales, D. Paez, A. L. Kornblit, & D. Asún (Eds.),
Psicología social (pp. 387-395). Buenos Aires: Pearson.
Organ, D., Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (2006). Organizational
citizenship behavior. Its nature, antecedents, and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pillai, R., Schriesheim, C., & Williams, E. (1999). Fairness
perceptions and trust as mediators for transformational and
transactional leadership: A two-sample study. Journal of
Management, 25, 897-933.
676 MORIANO, TOPA, AND LÉVY
Podsakoff , P., MacKenzie, S., Moorman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behavior and their effects on followers’
trust in leader, satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107-142.
Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Hopkins, N. (2005). Social identity
and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as
collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 547-568.
Shamir, B., & Kark, R. (2004). A simple graphic scale for the
measurement of organizational identification. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 115-123.
Topa, G., & Morales, J. F. (2006). Identificación organizacional
y proactividad personal en grupos de trabajo: Un modelo
de ecuaciones estructurales. Anales de Psicología, 22,
234-242.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social
group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup
relations. (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Stellmacher, J., & Christ, O. (2004).
The utility of a broader conceptualization of organizational
identification: Which of its aspects really matters? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 171-191.
van Knippenberg, D. (2000). Work motivation and performance:
A social identity perspective. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 49, 357-371.
van Knippenberg, D., & Ellemers, N. (2004). Social identity and group
performance. identification as the key to group-oriented effort. In
A. Haslam, D. van Knippenberg, M. J. Platow, & N. Ellemers
(Eds.), Social identity at work. Developing theory for organizational
practices (pp. 29-59). New York: Psychology Press.
van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. (2003). A social identity model
of leadership effectiveness in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 25, 243-295.
Received April 8, 2008
Revision received January 7, 2009
Accepted January 19, 2009