Leadership, power and the use of surveillance: Implications of shared social identity for leaders' capacity to influence

To ensure subordinates' compliance with organizational policies and procedures, those in positions of organizational leadership and authority have a number of resources at their disposal (e.g. rewards and punishments, surveillance, persuasion). When choosing strategies that will maximise their capacity to influence, however, leaders cannot afford to overlook the role of social identity processes. Evidence from two studies shows that the success or otherwise of strategies such as rewards/punishments and surveillance depends on whether the leader is considered to be an ingroup or outgroup member. In line with hypotheses, the results indicate that while surveillance may be a necessary tool in the repertoire of outgroup leaders (Experiment 2), in the hands of ingroup leaders it is likely to attenuate rather than enhance their capacity to influence (Experiments 1 and 2).