RUNNING HEAD: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA1

Leadership as a Social Phenomenon

Reflection Paper

Submitted to:

EDNA P. FRANCO, PhD

LEADS 303: Psychology of Leadership

Submitted by:

KAREN KRISTINE A. ROSCOM

2nd Year, PhD Leadership Studies major in Organizational Development

05 October 2019
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 2
SUMMARY OF READINGS

The following were the four articles that were used as references in this reflection paper:

1. A Social Identity Theory of Leadership (Hogg, 2001);

2. The New Psychology of Leadership (Reicher, Haslam, & Platow, 2007);

3. Rethinking the Pyschology of Leadership: From Personal Identity to Social Identity

(Haslam & Reicher, 2016); and

4. Toward a Theory of Followership (Popper, 2011).

Hogg (2001) reviewed the social identity theory of leadership based on the theories of

social identity and categorization and the concepts of prototypicality and depersonalization.

Social identity was referred to as belongingness to certain social groups based on self-

evaluation, which is focused on the positive distinctiveness of the group that satisfies the

need for self-esteem. Social categorization theory was defined as the cognitive aspect of

social identity which divided the social world into ingroups and outgroups. Prototypes were

those that exhibited the set of attributes that defined and prescribed the attitudes, feelings and

behaviors of the group that distinguished them from other groups. Depersonalization was the

basic process that perceptually assimilated people to relevant ingroup or outgroup prototypes,

which result to perceptually accentuating their respective prototypical similarities and

differences. Depersonalization was hypothesized to give rise to “social attraction” since

people’s feelings are now based on perceived prototypicality rather than from personal

relationships or “personal attraction”. Leadership was then defined as as a group process that

is formed from social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization related to social

identity. Social attraction facilitated active influence, enabled followers to agree and comply

with leaders, placed leaders in a different status, and created status-based structural

differentiation between followers and leaders (Hogg, 2001).

Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 3
Reicher, Haslam, and Platow (2007) examined social identity as the basis of influential

and creative leadership where leaders and followers are bound by a shared identity and that

shared identity becomes their blueprint for action. Effective leaders were described as those

who are able to convince followers to see themselves as part of the group having the same

interests as their own personal interests. They are prototypical to and the best representative

of what is distinct and superior to the group compared to other groups. Effective leaders also

favored fairness but fairness was defined by the followers. They shape and define social

identity to fit with policies that followers already previously believed in. Social identity

influence the type of society people create and in turn society also influence the kind of social

identity people create (Reicher, Haslam, & Platow, 2007).

Haslam and Reicher (2016) also discussed social identity as the new psychology of

leadership, which is based on the premise that leaders and followers are bound together

through a common group. The social identity approach considers group membership as

positively distinct from other outgroups, defines self within a social context and particular

behavior, and is a basis for social processes. Effective leader should be seen as a

representative of the group and an entrepreneur and impressario of identity. The social

identity approach analyzed effective leadership as both creative leadership and engaged

followership, something that has to be lived out and translated into change in the world, and

is not inherently a virtuous process (Haslam & Reicher, 2016).

Popper (2011) took on another lens of social identity, based on the psychology of

followership, which explained the sources of attraction to different leaders in different

situations. Followership is based on three theoretical perspectives of psychodynamics (leader

as a protective parent), psycho-cognitive (leader as an explanation to complex reality) and

social psychological (leader as embodiment of a social category or narrative that creates

meaning). Leader’s influence was described based on three contexts, which are psychological
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 4
distance between followers and leader (i.e. distant and close leaders), differences between

groups/social networks (i.e. national, organizational, cultural differences), and heterogeneity

of the followers (different individuals within social groups or networks). Depending on the

context or situation, major variables and concepts predicted and explained follower’s

perceptions of leaders by mapping of elements. Based on mapping, distant leaders are seen by

followers as visionary, based on their traits, while close leaders are seen as mentors or

experts, based on their behavior. In weak psychological situation such as stressful situations,

leaders are seen by followers as protective parents, as explained by psychodynamics theories,

while in heterogenous population in non-stressful situations, leaders are seen as a response to

specific personality needs, as explained by personality theories and interpersonal differences.

In homogenous social networks, leaders are seen as a narrative embodying characteristics of

the network, as explained by social psychological theories (Popper, 2011).

Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 5
ASSIMILATION AND REFLECTION

Leadership and Social Identity

The four articles explained leadership as a social phenomenon primarily through the

social identity theory, concepts and hypothesis. The common and recurring points were that

social identity stemmed from a person’s self-evaluation of belongingness to a social group

based on a shared interest and that it created a shared set of attitudes, feelings, traits, and

behaviors that are positively distinct and superior from other groups (Haslam & Reicher,

2016; Hogg, 2001; Reicher, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). Under the social identity perspective,

effective leaders are seen as prototypical and the embodiment of what is best in the group

(Haslam & Reicher, 2016; Hogg, 2001; Reicher, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). However,

effective leadership under the social identity lens, is ultimately proven in engaged

followership (Haslam & Reicher, 2016) where follower’s behavior is critical for leaders to be

empowered (Hogg, 2001) and followers are influenced by leaders only when they strengthen

the group’s social identity (Popper, 2011).

Leadership, Power and Influence

Under the social identity theory of leadership, prototypical leaders do not need to exercise

power to influence, but on the referent or position power of the group (Hogg, 2001). Power

becomes collective of leaders and followers that will produce the transformation in the world

(Haslam and Reicher, 2016). Leaders emerge when they become the best prototype or

embodiment of the group, which will then have the most influence over its members

(Reicher, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). In final analysis, leadership is fundamentally about

influence, about “power through” and not “power over” (Haslam and Reicher, 2016).
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 6
APPLICATION

To apply the social identity theory of leadership, Senator Cynthia Aguilar Villar as a

woman leader is examined based on secondary data from available sources from the internet.

Senator Villar recently topped the senatorial election (Elemia, 2019b) and is currently the

Chairperson of three influential Senate Committees, namely Agriculture and Food, Agrarian

Reform, and Environment (Ager, 2019).

Senator Villar’s Social Identity

Senator Cynthia Villar derives her social identity from the following four (4) major groups,

which are as follows:

1. Aguilar-Villar political family

Senator Villar comes from a wealthy political family in Las Pinas, south of Metro Manila

(Elemia, 2019b). She had three (3) male family members who were previously in politics: her

father (former Las Pinas Mayor Filemon Aguilar), husband (former Las Pinas-Muntinlupa

representative and Senator Manuel Villar), and brother (former Las Pinas Mayor Vergel

Aguilar) (About Cynthia A. Villar, n.d.; Casauay, 2013; Manny Villar, n.d.). Currently, her

son, Mark Villar (also a former Las Pinas representative) is the Secretary of Department of

Public Works and Highways and daughter, Camille Villar is a Las Pinas representative

(Elemia, 2019b).

2. Nacionalista Party and other political alliances

Senator Villar belongs to the Nacionalista Party (Elemia, 2018), the oldest political party

in the Philippines (Nacionalista Party, n.d), which her husband is the current President

(Elemia, 2018). In the last senatorial elections, she was also endorsed by the ruling Partido

Demokratiko Pilipino (PDP)-Laban of President Rodrigo Duterte and the Hugpong ng

Pagbabago (HNP) regional party of Davao city Mayor Sara Duterte, the president’s daughter
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 7
(Fenol, 2019). It was believed that “Duterte factor” contributed to her rise to the top spot

during the last senatorial elections (Elemia, 2019). In the 2016 presidential election, the Villar

husband and wife supported the presidential candidacy of then Mayor Duterte (Elemia,

2019b; Mallari, 2019).

3. Vista Land, Starmall Incorporated, and other business alliances

In 2018, Senator Villar was declared the richest senator while her husband was the richest

man, with their fortune largely attributable to their vast business empire (Elemia, 2019a;

Elemia, 2019b). The Villars own Vista Land, the biggest homebuilding company in the

Philippines, Starmalls Incorporated, a shopping center developer, and Golden Bria, a housing

and condominium developer (Elemia, 2019a; Elemia, 2019b). Their network of businesses

provided ground support particularly during the elections that propelled Senator Villar to the

top position (Elemia, 2019b).

4. Villar SIPAG (Social Institute for Poverty Alleviation and Governance) Foundation

In 1992, she founded and chaired the Villar SIPAG Foundation, which established 1,900

livelihood projects throughout the country and is also involved in OFW assistance, and

environment protection (About Cynthia A. Villar, n.d.). As Senator, many of her projects were

done in partnership with the foundation (Elemia, 2019b).

Senator Villar as a Distant Leader in the Eyes of Followers

Distant leader, attribution theories, attribution of leader’s traits, the leader as visionary

Senator Villar’s Social Attraction

Agriculture and Livelihood

Women

Environment
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 8
When asked why she selected to Chair the Committee on Agriculture and Food she responded

by saying that majority of Filipinos who live below the poverty line are engaged in

agriculture and it is only when agriculture prospers will majority of the Filipinos get out of

poverty (Jimenez-David, 2015).  Her goal is to remove the barriers, notably, the lack of

technology, lack of mechanization, no financial literacy and inability to access credit, that

prevent farmers from having high income and being competitive (Sen. Cynthia Villar:

Agriculture is Key, 2017). Her dream is to put up farm schools in all towns of the country

that offers training on financial literacy and profitability, sales and marketing, in order to

make farmers and fisherfolks competitive (Cynthia Villar: Agriculture is Key, 2017;

Senators pushes for creation of farm schools, 2018). This dream is echoed in her book,

“Seeds of Life: Farm Schools for Farmers and their Children,” which calls for the

establishment of free farm schools all over the country (Villar and Fernandez, 2017).

Currently, 1,955 farms schools are already established, through her initiatives and as

supported by TESDA (Biography of Senator Villar, n.d.).

Her charismatic persona is symbolized by her title as “Mrs. Hanapbuhay” which

captures not only her personal advocacy on providing livelihood for Filipinos but also her

role of a non-proverbial wife and mother, an independent and equal partner of her husband,

whose title is “Mr. Sipag and Tiyaga” (Diligence and Perseverance). The “Mrs. Hanapbuhay”

political advertisement had the highest recall during her campaign as Senator (Casauay,

2013).

Based on the report of the Performance of the Senate for the 17 th Congress (July 25,

2016 to May 31, 2017), the Committee on Agriculture and Food was cited as one of the most

active, which conducted 14 public hearings/technical working groups/organizational meetings

(Legislation Group, 2017). She authored 17 agriculture-related laws, 6 of which are

summarized in Table 1 (Legislation Group, 2017). Ten (10) are local bills creating multi-
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 9
specie marine hatchery/ nurseries and provincial training centers in 25 local government units

located in 14 provinces (Legislation Group, 2017). She also received numerous awards in

recognition of her notable work as a woman public servant, mother and entrepreneur (Awards

of Senator Cynthia Villar, n.d.). She was also conferred a honorary doctor of laws (honoris

causa) from the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) for her work in agricultural

development, poverty alleviation, education, women and children welfare (Biography of

Senator Cynthia Villar, n.d.).

When she was congresswoman, she authored and worked for the passage of eight (8)

legislations related to the promotion of the welfare of women, children, and family, as shown

in Table 2 (Senator Villar as congresswoman, n.d.). As Senator, her interests cover not only

domestic but also foreign policies, based on the trade-related legislations she authored

or filed (Legislation Group, 2017). The most recent bill she authored is the rice

tarrification bill, which lifts import quotas and collects tariffs for imported rice. Her

version proposed for a creation of a rice competitiveness enhancement fund, which will

provide programs to make farmers competitive (Rivas, 2018). When asked what will be

considered as a “Villar” brand of legislation, she pointed out two (2) proposed

legislations, the Coconut Farmers and Industry Development Law and the Rice

Tarrification Law, which will have an impact to the 7 million combined rice and coconut

farmers (Transcript of interview with Sen. Cynthia Villar on Pulse survey, rice

tarrification, 2018). Her desire to help the farmers naturally extends to her advocacy for

the environment (Jimenez-David, 2015). As Managing Director of Villar SIPAG

Foundation, she launched the Las Pinas-Zapote River System Rehabilitation Program in

2002, which has received recognition worldwide (Senator Cynthia Villas As Managing

Director of Villar SIPAG, n.d.) She also authored “River of Life: It All Begins with the

River” on conserving the Las Pinas river (Villar, 2016), and “Park of Life: The Las Pinas-
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 10
Paranaque Wetland Park” on promoting the mangrove forest as an ecotourism

destination (Villar and Fernandez, 2018).

Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 11
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 12
Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 13
References

Appelbaum, S.H., Audet, L., & Miller, J.C. (2003). Gender and leadership? leadership and

gender? A journey through the landscape of theories. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 24 (1), 43-51. doi: 10.1108/01437730310457320

Bass, B.M., & Avolio B.J. (2006). Shatter the glass ceiling: women make better managers.

Human Resource Management, 33 (4), 549-560. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930330405

Brawner, S. (2016). Leadership attainment of 14 women in agriculture: a qualitative study

(Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee.

Chaluvadi, N. S. S. L. (2015). Differences in leadership styles between genders: outcomes

and effectiveness of women in leadership roles (Paper 35). Providence, United States:

Johnson and Wales University.

Cuadrado, I., Navas, M., Molero, F., Ferrer, E., & Morales, J.F. (2012). Gender differences in

leadership style as a function of leader and subordinates’ sex and type of organization.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (12), 3083-3113.doi:10.111/j.1559-

1816.2012.00974.x

Derue D.S, Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S.E. (2011).Trait and behavioral

theories of leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

Personnel Psychology (64), 7-52.

Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., & van Engen, M.L. (2003). Transformational,

transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta analysis comparing women and

men. Psychological Bulletin (129), 569-591.

Eagly, A.H. ,& Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis (CHIP

Documents Paper 11). Connecticut, United States: Digital Commons@UConn.

Evans, D.P. (2014). Aspiring to leadership…a woman’s world? Procedia – Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 148, 543-550.doi: 10.1016/sbspro.2014.07.077

Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 14
Gipson, A., Pfaff, D., Mendelsohn, D., Catenacci, L., & Burke, W. (2017). Women and

leadership: selection, development, leadership style, and performance. The Journal of

Applied Behavioral Science, 53 (1) 32-65. doi:10.1177/0021886376687247

Kleihauer, S., Stephens, C.A., Hart, W.E., & Stripling, C.T. (2013). How six women deans of

agriculture have attained their leadership role: a qualitative study. Journal of

Leadership Education, 54(3), 15-27. doi:10.5032/jae.2013.03015

O’Connor, P.J. & Jackson, C.J. (2010). Applying a psychobiological model of personality to

the study of leadership. Journal of Individual Differences 31 (4), 185-

197.doi:10.1027/1614-0001/a000027

Paustian-Underdahl, S.C., Walker, L.S., & Woehr, D.J. (2014). Gender and perceptions of

leadership effectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 99 (6), 1129-1145. doi: 10.1037/a0036751

Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D., & Schyns, B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution

of leadership traits: a cross cultural comparison. Sex Roles, (51), 631-645.

Sedlmayr, L. (2017). Leadership styles and access of women to top level business positions

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Latvia, Latvia.

Trinidad, C., & Normore, A.H. (2005). Leadership and gender: a dangerous liaison?

Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26 (7) 574-590.

doi:10.1108/01437730510624601

van Engen, M.L, & Willemsen T.M (2000). Gender and leadership styles: a review of the

past decade (WORC Paper 00.10.09). The Netherlands: Tilburg University, Work and

Organization Research Centre.

Running head: LEADERSHIP AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENA 15
Zacarro, S. (2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62 (1), 6-

16. doi.10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6