Leader Categorization Theory

Leader categorization theory (LCT), originally proposed by Robert Lord, places emphasis on the cognitive and perceptual processes underlying workplace leadership. It proposes that subordinates, through socialization and past experiences with leaders, develop implicit leadership theories (ILTs), that is, cognitive representations in the form of prototypes that specify the traits and abilities that characterize an “ideal” workplace leader. ILTs represent preexisting cognitive structures or prototypes that are stored in memory and come into play when subordinates communicate with leaders. In other words, when subordinates interact with someone in a leadership position, this activates their ILT from memory, and then they can evaluate the person's leadership qualities against their ILT. This entry describes leader categorization theory and related research.

ILTs do not represent objective realities inherent in the leader, but rather, are perceptual abstractions, summary labels that subordinates use to categorize individuals in leadership positions. ILTs [Page 516]are, therefore, subjective and reflect each person's assumptions of what characteristics and traits make an ideal workplace leader.

ILTs tend to form around a number of common factors, such as sensitivity, dedication, charisma, attractiveness, intelligence, strength, tyranny, and masculinity. Each person's ILT represents a belief that an ideal workplace leader will have certain amounts of each of these factors. While people can vary in terms of their ILT profile, each person's ILT tends to be relatively robust, and it does not change markedly over time. In addition, while ILTs tend to be relatively consistent within the same culture, they can vary quite considerably between different culturesespecially between individualist (e.g., United States, United Kingdom, Australia) and collectivist (e.g., India, China, Japan) countries. Thus, national culture plays a role in shaping the prototype of an ideal workplace leader. This has many implications for leaders who manage subordinates from different cultures (as is becoming increasingly common with globalization), as these subordinates may have different ILTs concerning what constitutes an “ideal” leader.

The subordinate's perception of the leader is determined by two processes. First, leadership can be recognized from the qualities and behaviors revealed through interactions between the leader and subordinate (e.g., the way the leader behaves leads to attributions concerning his or her leadership qualities). Second, leadership can be inferred from the outcomes of events determined by the leader (e.g., the performance of the leader can give clues concerning the qualities of the leader).

Leader categorization theory is a recognitionbased approach to leadership. A person is evaluated as a leader on the basis of the perceived match between the behavior and character of the leader and those of the perceiver's ILT prototype. ILTs are the benchmark subordinates use to form an impression of their actual leader. Subordinates are assumed to engage in an “ILT vs. actual manager” matching process, and any discrepancies identified are subsequently thought to affect the overall impression that the subordinate forms of the leader.

In other words, when subordinates interact with a leader, they evaluate that leader against their own personal ILT profile. The better the leader matches the subordinate's ILT, the more positive will be the subordinate's judgment of the leader. Since subordinates might have differences in their ILTs, the perception of the qualities of the same leader might vary among members of the same work group.

...