Running head: LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 1

Leadership Categorisation: Intelligence Dimension across the Category

Literature Review

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 2

You need to redo this in a way that cover the two assumption- integrity by symbolic and variance

by connectionist-

Hanges, Lord, and Dickson (2000) argue that the connectionist architecture of leadership

falls between cognitive schemas and the conceptualization of schemas, especially from a

leadership perspective. Other scholars reiterate that the connectionist view can provide a fluid

and context-sensitivity in the understanding of followership and leadership while generating

substantial consistency and coherence (Foti, Knee & Backert, 2008; Sy et al., 2010). Therefore, it

is reasonable to say that the connections model's level of congruence or incongruence in implicit

leadership theories (ILTs) is upheld by leaders and subordinates as a necessary mutual influence

procedure (Coyle & Foti, 2014). This feature of the model conforms to the ILTs dimensions or

factors, such as sensitivity and dedication. On the same line, Foti, Hansbrough, Epitropaki, and

Coyle (2017) conducted a study and discovered that leadership perception anchored on

recognition-oriented procedures results in congruence between perceived characteristics and a

perceiver's leadership prototype. On the other hand, the authors found that inferential-oriented

approaches depend on reported earlier performance to deduce leadership (Foti et al., 2017). The

authors continue to explain that the connectionist model emphasizes on follower identification as

an essential element of leadership categorization as a social control process. In short, the authors

acknowledge that connection networks in leadership cat theory support different varieties of

ILTs meaning.

According to Foti et al. (2017), in connectionist models, the implication of connection

network toward ILTs dimensions is realized when top-down (leaders) constraints corroborate

with bottom-up (follower) inputs to trigger variety nodes in the model network. In the same

breath, Tsai et al. 's (2017) investigative study on relational leadership schemas demonstrate that
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 3

expressive relational schemas (ERS) and instrumental relational schemas (IRS) emphasize on

social support and economic exchanges of leadership, respectively. Perhaps one would be right

to highlight that the social and economic perspective of the connectionist model is vital ILTs

dimensions toward dedication and sensitivity between leaders and followers. Tsai et al. (2017)

further investigated the influence of congruence on the inter-individual relational schema,

specifically between leaders and followers. Their findings demonstrate vital implications for

ILTs dimension of sensitivity since leaders or followers who are investing in economic

exchanges are less likely to achieve high-quality interactions in a schema of relationships (Tsai et

al., 2017). Furthermore, Trichas, Schyns, Lord, and Hall (2017) conducted an experimental study

to examine the influence of a leader's contentment versus nervous emotions on perceptions as

endorsed by ILTS. The findings reveal that higher endorsement of prototypical ILTs, such as

sensitivity, exhibits happy emotional display by leaders compared to the lower approval of

tyranny or antiprototypical behaviors (Trichas et al., 2017). The findings of this study support a

vital argument of connectionist frameworks that leadership categorizations are context-sensitive

and vary between people. The study also implies that it endorses the dynamic aspect of both

ILTs and implicit followership theories (IFTs) (Trichas et al., 2017). The sensitivity of ILTs is

directly related to the connection theory. However, there is an interesting paradigm shift from

symbolic and connectionist.

Philosophers of science have raised some severe and probing questions regarding the

symbolic and connectionist systems, especially toward cognitive science (Lord & Brown, 2001).

They conducted a systematic review to demonstrate the compatible structures of leaders toward

subordinates' self-regulatory and value promotion. They found that network interactive activation

or inhibition is essential for advancing leadership practice (Lord & Brown, 2001). The benefits
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 4

are linked to the symbolic aspects of cat theory and ILTs dimensions. Green's (2001) study

acknowledged that despite the problematic nature of conventional symbolic models, symbolic

expressions frameworks are essential for shaping desires, beliefs, and other propositional

perceptional cognitive networks. The author found out that symbolic models have practical

implications on conceptualizing various forms of leadership and influencing team dynamics for

lateral, downward, and upward (Green, 2001). These practical implications support the bottom-

up and top-down dimensions of the connectionist model (Foti et al., 2017). It is reasonable to say

that the symbolic model has a similar influence on leadership categorization, just like the

connectionist theory.

Bligh, Pearce, and Kohles (2006) build on earlier scholars' findings with the assertion that

more excellent dialogue is inevitable in understanding the various insights of shared leadership

characteristics, such as team cohesion, ability, likeability, familiarity, and others. Bligh et al.

(2006) cite self-leadership, trust, integrity, potency, and dedication as an essential dimension of

their shared model for collective attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. Arguably, these

elements corroborate the aspects of the serial cognitive procedure in which personal and discrete

attributes of individuals (leaders) are compared to environmental stimuli before concluding the

implication of mental model. Joanisse and McClelland (2015) support the assertion of Bligh et

al. (2006) with an explanation that mental states activate the brain to transform activities and

respond to external input. Similarly, Khattab, van Knippenberg, Pieterse, and Hernandez (2018)

reiterate that social networks are symbolic dimensions for promoting the social capital of

subordinates on leadership advancement. The authors propose using network utilization theory to

understand the underrepresentation of minorities in leadership (Khattab et al., 2018). From the

findings, one is right to argue that the symbolic and connectionists model contributes toward
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 5

ILTs and cat theory implementation. Apart from the sensitivity and dedication attributes of cat

theory, the two models share the systematic intelligence of leadership.

Gage and Smith (2016) conducted a theoretical review of leadership categorization that

embraces a whole approach of a systematic intelligence in leadership, an element of the schemas.

The authors discovered that existing literature are supporting a leadership framework that

embraces the dynamics of intelligence, especially spiritual intelligence (SQ), rational intelligence

(IQ), and emotional intelligence (EQ) to activate a reflective leader. These elements are aspects

of definitional integrity, which are attached to leadership categorization because they tell about a

person's trait comparable to leadership capability (Gage & Smith, 2016). Tavares, Sobral,

Goldszmidt, and Araújo (2018) seem to agree with the intelligence connection in leadership

categorization. They conducted an experimental exploration of leadership perceptions toward the

socio-cognitive concepts of impression procedures. The results showed that the leader

categorization process's specific attributes are contingent on the leadership schema type (Tavares

et al., 2018). Their findings support the principle that people cognitively corroborate a super-

ordinate managerial prototype and a different dynamic. Khattab et al. (2018) support these

findings with an assertion that cognitive, social structures are leaders' mental symbols of the

social systems that congruent the real social network mechanisms of society. Symbolic

interventionism is considered as a fundamental dimension of an intelligence leadership system

(Green, 2001; Gage & Smith, 2016). In short, the empirical evidence supports the systematic

intelligence leadership.

The systematic intelligence dimensions cut across various categories of leadership

concepts. Hämäläinen and Saarinen (2007) conducted a meta-analysis study to investigate

leadership categorization from a systematic and intelligent approach. The researchers used
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 6

Martin Luther King and Lincoln to argue that the choice-intensive, contextual, and holistic

characteristics of system intelligence are essential dimensions of leadership categorization. The

authors cited various aspects and features of systematic intelligence leadership, including and not

limited to sensibilities, the symbolic order, connectivity, and systems intelligent interventions

(Hämäläinen & Saarinen, 2007). On the other hand, Montemayor (2019) experimented with the

possibility of cognitive penetration in different approaches to leadership. They concluded that the

inferential-attention account is preferable for conscious intuition than the influential agential

schema (Montemayor, 2019). It is evident that empirical evidence reconciles these two

approaches to leadership categorization theory; however, findings are inconclusive; hence, the

current study seeks to build on existing knowledge and complete the literature gaps.
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 7

References

Bligh, C. M., Pearce, L. C., & Kohles, C. J. (2006). The importance of self- and shared

leadership in team based knowledge work: A meso-level model of leadership dynamics.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(4), 296-318.

Coyle, P. T., & Foti, R. (2014). If You’re not with me you’re...? Examining prototypes and

cooperation in leader–follower relationships. Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 22(2), 161-174. doi:10.1177/1548051814550830

Foti, R. J., Hansbrough, T. K., Epitropaki, O., & Coyle, P. T. (2017). Dynamic viewpoints on

implicit leadership and followership theories: approaches, findings, and future directions.

Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 261-267.

Foti, R. J., Knee, R. E., & Backert, R. S. G. (2008). Multi-level implications of framing

leadership as a dynamic process. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 178–194.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.007

Gage, T., & Smith, C. (2016). Leadership intelligence: Unlocking the potential for school

leadership effectiveness. South African Journal of Education, 36(4), 1-9. Doi:

10.15700/saje.v36n4a1328

Green, C. D. (2001). Scientific models, connectionist networks, and cognitive science. Theory &

Psychology, 11(1), 97–117. doi:10.1177/0959354301111008

Hämäläinen, P. R., & Saarinen, E. (2007). Systems intelligent leadership. Systems Intelligence in

Leadership and Everyday Life, 3-38.

Hanges, P., Lord, R., & Dickson, M. (2000). An information-processing perspective on

leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology, 49(1),

133–161. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00008
LEADERSHIP CATEGORISATION 8

Joanisse, F. M., & McClelland, L. J. (2015). Connectionist perspectives on language learning,

representation and processing. WIREs Cognitive Science, 1-13. Doi: 10.1002/wcs.1340

Khattab, J., van Knippenberg, D., Pieterse, N. A., & Hernandez, M. (2018). A network

utilization perspective on the leadership advancement of minorities. Academy of

Management Review, 45(1), 1-57. doi:10.5465/amr.2015.0399

Lord, G. R., & Brown, J. D. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. The

Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133-152.

Montemayor, C. (2019). Inferential Integrity and attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2580), 1-

14. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02580

Sy, T., Shore, L. M., Strauss, J., Shore, T. H., Tram, S., Whiteley, P., & Ikeda-Muromachi, K.

(2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race–occupation fit: The case of Asian

Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 902–919. Doi: 10.1037/a0019501

Tavares, G. M., Sobral, F., Goldszmidt, R., & Araújo, F. (2018). Opening the implicit leadership

theories' black box: An experimental approach with conjoint analysis. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9(100), 1-11 Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00100

Trichas, S., Schyns, B., Lord, R. G., & Hall, R.J. (2017). “Facing” leaders: facial expression and

leadership perception. Leadership Quarterly, 28(2), 317-333. Doi:

10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.013

Tsai, C. Y., Dionne, S. D., Wang, A. C., Spain, S. M., Yammarino, F. J., & Cheng, B. S. (2017).

Effects of relational schema congruence on leader-member exchange. Leadership

Quarterly, 28(2), 268-284. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.005