Motivation to cooperate in Organisations: The case of prototypical leadership and procedural fairness

————— Prof. Dr. David De Cremer is professor of Behavioural Business Ethics at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands; Dr. Marius van Dijke, Department of Work and Organisation Psychology, Open University, the Netherlands; Lieven Brebels, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Center of Behavioral Business Ethics, Department Business-Society Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands; Niek Hoogervorst, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Center of Behavioral Business Ethics, Department Business-Society Management, Erasmus University, the Netherlands. This paper was written while the first author was a Research Fellow at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and which was financially supported by "De Jonge Akademie" of the Royal Dutch Society of Sciences (KNAW) and the Women and Public Policy Program at the Kennedy School of Government. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David De Cremer, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus Center of Behavioral Business Ethics, Department BusinessSociety Management, Erasmus University, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, NL-3062 PA Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, NL-3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: ddecremer@rsm.nl MOTIVATION TO COOPERATE IN ORGANISATIONS: THE CASE OF PROTOTYPICAL LEADERSHIP AND PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS

The present paper explores how leader prototypicality and procedural fairness connect in stimulating follower cooperation. We, first of all, argue that leader prototypicality (the extent to which a leader represents the group identity) enhances positive perceptions about the future. It does so by positively influencing perceptions of the leader's procedural fairness (at least among strongly identifying group members). Such perceptions of procedural fairness, in turn, stimulate follower cooperation. Secondly, we argue that leader prototypicality also facilitates the enactment of fair procedures by increasing the effectiveness that a procedurally fair treatment has on follower cooperation. We present an overview of very recent studies that support both arguments and conclude that group based dynamics, which determine the group prototype, have important influences on the effectiveness with which leaders can stimulate cooperation by means of procedural fairness.
In our diverse and internationally oriented society it is important that teams, groups, and organisations fare well to contribute effectively to our welfare. To achieve this end, it is necessary that cooperation and withingroup relationships are coordinated in effective ways. Cooperation reflects the positive behaviours that group members display such as exerting themselves on the job and supporting the organisation or team by contributing individual effort, time, and resources to collective projects (e.g., Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995;Van Vugt, Snyder, Tyler, & Biel, 2000; see also Katz, 1964). One important manner to ensure cooperation within organisations is the use of effective leadership (Yukl, 1998). Indeed, motivating group members to cooperate towards achieving the goals of the group is a core function of leadership (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2002;Tyler & Blader, 2000). In fact, Hogan, Curphy, and Hogan (1994, p. 493) argued that "leadership involves persuading other people to set aside for a period of time their individual concerns and to pursue a common goal that is important for the responsibilities and welfare of a group".
A recent focus in the literature on leadership and cooperation is on the importance of procedural fairness in promoting cooperation and positive relationships between organisational members (see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005a, for an overview). Procedural fairness refers to the degree to which the process on which enacting authorities rely to make decisions is perceived as fair by group members or employees (Leventhal, 1980;Lind & Tyler, 1988). From a broader perspective, procedural fairness is separate from and impacts people's attitudes and behaviours above and beyond the degree to which the decision outcomes themselves are perceived as fair (i.e., distributive fairness; Adams, 1963), and whether authorities treat group members with dignity and respect (i.e., interpersonal fairness; Bies & Moag, 1986). Procedural fairness is a relevant construct for cooperation and leadership research because (a) the enactment of fair procedures has positive implications for group members' self-worth, and (b) procedural fairness information is usually provided by group leaders or authorities, which are generally perceived as representative for the entire group. Typical procedural fairness phenomena include, for instance, whether organisational members receive voice or not in the decisions of authorities (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), whether authorities refrain from self-interests in their decisions, and consistently treat all group members in the same manner (i.e., Leventhal, 1980).
According to the self-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005a), fair procedures positively influence people's self-definition (i.e., by increasing belongingness and standing of group and organisational members). This influence on people's identity, in turn, increases their motivation to pursue and contribute to the collective or organisational welfare (i.e., a stronger collective affiliation merges the interest of the self and the collective; van Knippenberg, 2000). As a result, procedural fairness represents a promising tool to help organisations managing the problem of obtaining cooperation -if people feel that the leader uses fair procedures, they are more socially oriented and highly motivated to cooperate.
Interestingly, it has recently become clear that the group-based properties of the leader are important in (a) facilitating the expectations of fair treatment within organisations (Van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008a) and (b) ensuring that the enactment of fair procedures is effective in promoting cooperation (De Cremer, Van Dijke, & Mayer, 2008; see also Lipponen, Koivisto, & Olkkonen, 2005). Over the past ten years, group-based properties have been recognised as important determinants of leader effectiveness within organisations, particularly in the development of the concept of prototypical leadership (see van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003, for an overview). This analysis, in turn, is built on the social identity theory of intergroup behaviour (i.e., Tajfel & Turner, 1986), and self-categorisation theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In addition, it is also noteworthy that the analysis of prototypical leadership shows traces of the influence of other research traditions as well, such as studies demonstrating that leaders sometimes direct their group towards intergroup competition, in order to increase their followers' compliance (Rabbie & Bekkers, 1978).
In the following sections, we will first discuss the concepts of prototypical leadership and procedural fairness and its influences on cooperative follower behaviour in greater detail. Then, it will be discussed how prototypical leadership and procedural fairness combine in affecting cooperation within organisations. Finally, we present some conclusions regarding the combined effect of leader prototypicality and procedural fairness policies on organisational cooperation and outline both theoretical and practical implications.
A prototypical leader: How to become one?
As we argued earlier, the concept of prototypical leadership has been developed in the field of social identity theory. 1 Social identity theory proposes that people are motivated to derive important aspects of their self-definition and their self-worth (their social identity) from their group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thinking of oneself as a group or organisational member implies a self-definition in terms of attributes that one ascribes to this group or organisation. This prototypical group representation is an abstract, context specific image of descriptive (i.e., what "we" are) and prescriptive (i.e., how "we" should think, feel, and behave) group-defining elements (Hogg, 2001). People consider prototypical characteristics of a salient group with which they identify as characterising themselves and their fellow group members (Turner et al., 1987). Group prototypicality, thus, on -----1 It should be noted that in the social identity analysis of leadership, the meaning of "leader prototype" differs from how it is treated in Leader categorisation theory (e.g., Lord, 1985;Lord & Maher, 1991). In leader categorisation theory the leader prototype denotes ideal characteristics of leaders (e.g., intelligence). The extent to which a leader represents this prototype influences leader endorsement and perceived leader effectiveness. This use thus differs from the leader prototype as characterising the group identity (see Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998, for research comparing both theories). the one hand refers to a description of the central group characteristics, and, on the other hand, it also provides a normative standard by which group members are evaluated.
Importantly, group members differ in the extent to which they are effectively described by the group prototype. In other words, group members differ in their relative prototypicality. Moreover, a prototype is context specific because its content depends on the specific outgroup that forms the comparison target. For example, I may think of my psychology department as doing theory-driven empirical research, particularly so when I compare my department with a business school that has a more applied focus. However, when I compare my department with the physics department, I may be more inclined to think that "we" do "soft" research.
In developing the concept of prototypical leadership, the social identity analysis of leadership starts from the observation that leaders are, in effect, members of the groups they lead (Hogg, 2001). Thus, characteristics of leaders as group members may play an important role in their effectiveness. Field studies (Fielding & Hogg, 1997) and lab studies (e.g., Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997) show that, when a certain group prototype is salient (and recall that this is not fixed, but dependent on the particular intergroup comparison), the group member that best represents this in-group's identity -the most prototypical group member -is most likely to be considered the group's leader, particularly so by those identifying strongly with this group. Moreover, prototypical leaders are also perceived as more effective than non-prototypical leaders by these strongly identifying group members (e.g., Hains et al., 1997), and they may even positively affect actual performance of their subordinates (van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). In sum, the prototypicality of the leader can be seen as an important determinant of leadership effectiveness within groups and organisations.
A neglected aspect of leader effectiveness in the analysis of prototypical leadership, however, is how prototypical leaders stimulate cooperation. To address this question, we will present findings of recent research showing the impact of prototypical leadership on prosocial and cooperative behaviours. Moreover, we will develop the argument that procedural fairness plays an important role in this process. Attempts to recognise the role of procedural fairness in the analysis of prototypical leadership are rare (e.g., Van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008b; see also Ullrich, Christ, & van Dick, in press). This is remarkable because, as we will argue below, studying the role of procedural fairness in this analysis not only increases our understanding of the effectiveness of prototypical leaders in stimulating cooperation; it also has clear implications for our understanding of how group based dynamics may affect the workings of procedural fairness. This approach fits well with van Knippenberg and Hogg's (2003, p. 281) suggestion that "The role of leader fairness in leadership effectiveness may thus fruitfully be integrated with, and extend, the social identity analysis of leadership effectiveness".

Procedural fairness: What is it and what makes it work?
The perception of procedural fairness can be derived from various sources of information, including whether group members receive voice in the decisions of authorities, whether authorities can exclude their own interests when making decisions, and whether they consistently treat all group members in the same way (i.e., Leventhal, 1980). A procedurally fair treatment by group authorities positively influences a range of desirable variables, such as people's positive emotions (De Cremer, 2004;van den Bos & Spruijt, 2002), self-perceptions of status and inclusion in the group, and people's selfesteem (i.e., Tyler, Degoey, & Smith, 1996). In addition, procedural fairness has also been shown to have behavioural consequences within groups and organisations, such as compliance with authorities (i.e., people react more positively to authorities enacting fair procedures when taking decisions), and organisational citizenship behaviours (see Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001;Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Unfair treatment, on the other hand, results in antisocial behaviours, such as revenge, retaliation, and theft (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006;Brebels, De Cremer, & Sedikides, in press;Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Such negative behaviour is obviously considered problematic from the perspective of organisations and collectives as it hinders development and survival of groups, and, importantly with respect to the present paper, it undermines effective leadership aimed at establishing cooperation.
It is therefore interesting to note that recent research is increasingly showing that a procedurally fair treatment also reveals positive effects on cooperation of organisational members (see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005a, for an overview). The idea here is that "individuals are likely to be motivated on behalf of the organisation when the organisation is motivated on behalf of them" (Cropanzano & Schminke, 2001, p. 143). In support of this idea, De Cremer and van Knippenberg (2002), for instance showed that a procedurally fair treatment by the group's leader (operationalized as giving group members an opportunity to voice their opinion or not) was particularly successful in enhancing group members' contributions toward public goods. Similar results have been obtained in both experimental and field studies (De Cremer, Tyler, & den Ouden, 2005).
Two reasons can be given why a procedurally fair treatment by group leaders positively influences cooperation. First, a large number of studies show that people are less concerned with the favourability of their outcomes when procedures are fair (see Brockner & Wiesenfeld, 1996;2003, for overviews). One important reason for this is that procedural fairness enhances positive expectations that all will go well in the future (even if outcomes are now unfavourable; Brockner & Siegel, 1996;Brockner, Wiesenfeld, & Martin, 1995). It is therefore of the highest importance for group leaders to be able to raise the expectation that they will be fair in the future. If they succeed in raising such trustworthy expectation, it is likely that group members are willing to forego their immediate self-interests and cooperate, exactly because they will expect that their interests are guaranteed in the long run.
A second reason why the enactment of fair procedures has a positive influence on cooperation of group members is that it intrinsically motivates people to pursue collective or organisational interests, instead of their own interests. That is, fair procedures have the ability to transform people's motives to the collective level, as such making that their own interest and collective interest become more interchangeable. In other words, fair procedures communicate that followers are accepted and valued group members making that they feel like core members and thus experience and value the interests and goals of the group as their own. This "transformation of motives" explanation has also been supported in various experimental and field settings (i.e., De Cremer & Van Dijk, 2002;De Cremer et al., 2005;.
In the following sections, we argue that leader prototypicality plays a central role in promoting trustworthy expectations and facilitating enactment of fair procedures; two routes that enhance cooperation among group members.

How prototypicality and procedural fairness combine in affecting cooperation: Two routes to success
The relationship between analyses of prototypical leadership and procedural justice models such as the group value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988) may be considered natural in a way that both perspectives highlight the importance of identity processes. In the group value model, it is noted that procedurally fair decision-making by the group leader communicates important identity information. That is, being treated fairly signals to people that they are respected and valued group members. As such, the fairness with which people are treated by their supervisor has a positive impact on identity-related outcome variables, such as people's self-estimated status in the group or organisation (i.e., their perceived respect; Tyler, 1989;1994) and feelings of social reputation . These status-related feelings, in turn, are known to influence people's self-esteem (Smith, Tyler, Huo, Ortiz, & Lind, 1998).
The importance of identity-relevant outcomes such as self-esteem has also been an integral part of social identity theory (Hogg & Abrams, 1988), as, for example, illustrated in the assumption that group memberships provide people with positive self-esteem when their ingroup is evaluated positively relative to other groups (De Cremer & Oosterwegel, 2000;De Cremer, Van Vugt, & Sharpe, 1999). Therefore, it is interesting to note that prior research has revealed supportive evidence that also social identity concerns can affect procedural fairness effects. 2 First of all, identity information, as communicated via the organisational or group representative, has been shown to have a particularly strong impact among group members who care most about the group. For instance, research shows that people who are strongly committed to an organisation react more negatively to perceived unfairness than less committed organisation members (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992). Secondly, people are more likely to support procedurally fair, rather than unfair authorities, but this effect is stronger for people who strongly identify with the organisation (Tyler & Degoey, 1995; see also De Cremer & Van Vugt, 2002;Tyler et al., 1996). Finally, people who generally attach high importance to social relations and group membership (people high in the need to belong; Baumeister & Leary, 1995) have also been shown to react more strongly to procedural (un)fairness (De Cremer & Blader, 2006).
Equally important from a social identity explanation of the workings of procedural fairness is that for fair treatment to have impact on identity related variables, authorities enacting the procedure should themselves be representative of the group (Tyler, 1999). In support of this assumption, Smith and colleagues (1998) showed that the fairness of treatment by an ingroup authority impacted more strongly on organisational members' self-esteem than the fairness of treatment by an outgroup authority. Moreover, Lipponen -----2 We wish to emphasise, however, that relational procedural fairness models such as the group-value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988), the relational model of authority (Tyler & Lind, 1992), and a group-based model of cooperation (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005a), are not social identity theory-models as some researchers have recently argued. In fact, these relational models all make the assumption that the enactment of procedures influences people's social self (see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005a). The social self in these models is seen as relational in nature because procedures are considered an interpersonal phenomenon and thus impact the recipient of the procedure (i.e., often the subordinate) in the relationship (see De Cremer & Tyler, 2005c;Sedikides, Hart, & De Cremer, in press). As a result, people's self as defined within the relationship (i.e., social self) is influenced. Interestingly, depending on which level the individual interacts, different levels of identity will be influenced by procedural fairness: personal identity (i.e., relationships with an objective instance of the authority such as committees or governments), relational identity (i.e., dyadic relationships or within-group relationships) and collective identity (i.e., intergroup relationships). Thus, social identity as a reflection of a collective identity (as it is derived from intergroup interactions) represents thus one aspect (albeit an important one) of people's social self that is impacted upon by the use of fair procedures. and colleagues (2005) showed that interpersonal fairness (a form of fairness that is related to the informal aspects of procedural fairness; Tyler & Blader, 2003a) was more strongly related to judgments of own status when the authority was prototypical than non-prototypical of the group.
Taken together, from a social identity theory perspective, prototypical leadership is closely aligned to procedural fairness effects. In the present paper, we propose that both concepts can be related in two different ways thereby presenting two different routes to affect cooperation within organisations (see Figure 1, for a visual representation of the two routes).

Figure 1
Graphic representation of the two routes by which leader prototypicality and procedural fairness interrelate to stimulate cooperation Route 1: Prototypicality and expectations of fairness As we mentioned earlier, one reason why a fair enactment of procedures by the leader can be expected to positively influence cooperation of organisational members is that a procedurally fair treatment enhances positive expectations that all will go well in the future (regardless of the favourability of current outcomes; see Brockner & Siegel, 1996). Here we argue that prototypical leadership increases perceptions of procedural fairness, at least among strongly identifying followers. If this argument is valid, prototypicality should also be able to influence cooperation among organisational members. There is reason to expect that prototypical leaders are viewed as procedurally fair among highly identifying organisational members (see Van Dijke & De Cremer, 2008a). First, people are biased towards members of their ingroup when attributing positive characteristics to members of groups they identify with (including social justice, Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). The social identity analysis of prototypical leadership views leaders as group members. Hence, positive characteristics, such as fairness can be expected to be ascribed to group leaders as well, at least when these leaders are considered to represent the group's identity, or in other words, when they are prototypical.
A second reason why we expect strongly identifying group members to consider a prototypical group leader as procedurally fair is because the legitimacy of leaders (as, in this case, resulting from their prototypicality; Hogg & Reid, 2001) can provide a frame of reference through which their actions are evaluated as fair or unfair (Tyler, 2006). Recent research has shown that reference frames affect people's evaluations of their leaders. For instance, van den Bos, Burrows, Umphress, Folger, Lavelle, Eaglestone, and Gee (2005) showed that people considered leaders showing neutral behaviour as more positive when these leaders had previously acted fairly, rather than unfairly. A somewhat related argument is found in leadership research showing that supportive leadership styles (Keller & Dansereau, 1995) and leadermember exchange (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998) enhance perceptions of leaders as acting fairly. Therefore, we expect that prototypicality, as a leader characteristic, also functions as a frame of reference, through which leaders' behaviour is evaluated as fair or unfair. In addition, because people are highly sensitive to prototypicality particularly when group membership is more versus less salient (Hogg & Reid, 2001), this effect should be more pronounced among those who identify strongly rather than weakly with their group or organisation.
In support of this line of reasoning, Van Dijke and De Cremer (2008a) indeed showed in a laboratory as well as in an organisational field study that prototypical leaders are viewed as procedurally fair, particularly among strongly identifying group members. Importantly, these procedural fairness perceptions were also shown to play a role in explaining support for the leader and perceived leader effectiveness -two often found positive effects of prototypical leadership (see van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003). Among strongly identifying group members, perceptions of the group leader's procedural fairness (especially perceptions related to the procedural rules of consistency and bias) mediated support for prototypical leaders and perceptions of leader effectiveness. We may thus conclude that leader prototypicality indeed functions as a frame of reference, colouring high identifiers' procedural fairness perceptions, and by that, installs expectations that all will go well in the future. Such expectations, in turn, increase support for the leader, and make leaders more effective.
Route 2: Prototypicality facilitating the enactment of fair procedures The fairness of procedures enacted by group leaders also influences group members' level of identification, and in doing so, transforms followers' motives from the personal to the collective or organisational level. This transformation process influences their attitudes (i.e., towards positive evaluation of the group) and behaviour (i.e., it increases levels of cooperation). Therefore, as we will argue below, we propose that leader prototypicality not only directly influences perceptions of the leader as procedurally fair, but that prototypicality, as a leader characteristic also ensures that the actual enactment of fair procedures is effective in promoting cooperation.
Research suggests that the extent to which the authority represents the ingroup affects the impact that a fair treatment by this authority has on selfdefinitional variables among group members (i.e., respect, pride, and selfesteem; see Lipponen et al., 2005;Smith et al., 1998). Such self-definitional variables account for most of the positive effects of procedural fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2000), including cooperation. It can thus be expected that the prototypicality of the group leader also affects the extent to which this leader can stimulate cooperation among group members. Research pertaining to this issue is, however, quite limited.
One relevant line of research, however, was recently conducted by De Cremer and colleagues (2008). These authors conducted a series of organisational field and experimental studies directly addressing effects of procedural fairness on group members' cooperation. Moreover, these studies are also of particular importance to the group context of leadership, because they address the extent to which leaders treated the group as a whole fairly or unfairly. Specifically, this research addressed how fairly the leader treated both the (focal) participant and a fellow group member while making allocation decisions, consequently affecting cooperation. It was predicted and found that leaders are especially effective in stimulating cooperation when they are procedurally fair towards all group members (i.e., the focal partici-pant and the fellow group member). When they are unfair to either the focal participant or to the fellow group member, they are relatively unsuccessful in promoting cooperation.
Because cooperation derives from a transformation of motives from the individual to the group level, the fairness with which the focal participant and the fellow group member was treated was expected to be particularly effective in stimulating cooperation if the leader was representative of the group's identity -or in other words, was prototypical. The results indeed supported this expectation in showing that the positive interactive effect of procedural fairness towards the focal participant and towards the fellow group members on cooperation was found only when the leader was prototypical. Non-prototypical leaders were always relatively unsuccessful in producing cooperation. 3

Conclusion and discussion
In the present paper we have argued that intergroup dynamics (e.g., the social psychological processes that play a role in between-group interactions such as prototypicality) play an important role in leader effectiveness. Indeed, the groups that are chosen or available for social comparison determine the nature of the group prototype that is salient, and by that they determine who will be the most prototypical group member. Because prototypical leaders are accepted more and considered more effective, at least among strongly identifying followers, intergroup dynamics clearly influence whether (appointed) leaders are effective, and also who will be most likely to be viewed (and supported) as the group's leader.
The argument that we developed here focused on one important aspect of leadership effectiveness, that is, the ability of leaders to stimulate cooperation among the members of the teams and organisations they lead. In order to understand how leaders enhance cooperation, we explicitly recognised the role of procedural fairness in the analysis of prototypical leadership. Specifically, we argued, and presented evidence, that prototypical leadership affects cooperation via procedural fairness in two different ways.
-----First, prototypicality enhances positive perceptions about the future. It does so by influencing perceptions of procedural fairness, at least among strongly identifying group members. In other words, prototypicality functions as a frame of reference, colouring fairness judgments of strongly identifying group members. As procedural fairness perceptions have been shown to motivate people towards cooperation, it follows that prototypical leaders may (due to their effect on procedural fairness judgments) also affect cooperation within organisations.
A second way in which leader prototypicality can play a positive role in motivating group members towards cooperation is by transforming motives towards a collective orientation. Indeed, the actual enactment of procedures makes followers intrinsically connected to the organisation's welfare. In addition, this effect on their intrinsic motivation and subsequent cooperative behaviour is facilitated when prototypical leaders enact fair procedures. Overall, our theoretical analysis thus convincingly shows that intergroup dynamics, via their ability to shape the salient group prototype, exert significant influence on the effectiveness of procedural fairness as a tool to establish cooperation within organisations.
It is interesting to note a difference between our studies addressing the role of leader prototypicality in moderating the procedural fairness effects on cooperation and other research addressing moderating effects of leader prototypicality. Other research has indicated that prototypical leaders receive more leeway than nonprototypical leaders and they are thus endorsed even when they act distributively or procedurally unfair (see Platow & van Knippenberg, 2001;Ullrich et al., in press, respectively). Moreover, leader performance and leader behaviours like self-sacrifice influence perceptions of such leaders' effectiveness most clearly when these leaders are non prototypical (see Giesner & van Knippenberg, 2008, Giesner, van Knippenberg, & Sleebos, in press;van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005, respectively).
In showing that prototypicality can act as a substitute for (procedural) fairness, these studies appear to report results that are opposite to the present results. We suspect that these seemingly opposite patterns of findings result from the specific dependent variable under study. In our studies, we focused on cooperation as resulting from a transformation of motives from the individual to the group level, which should be most likely to occur when determinants of such motive transformations (i.e., procedural fairness) are delivered by authorities who actually represent the group (see also Lipponen et al., 2005). The other studies that were briefly described above focus on leader endorsements, which are more likely to directly result from perceptions of the leader as legitimate. And, perceptions of leader legitimacy can result from leader prototypicality (Hogg & Reid, 2001) as well as from leader procedural fairness (Tyler, 2006), making it likely that one concept can substi-tute for the other. Nevertheless, future research should more explicitly focus on these seemingly diverging patterns of findings.
So, where does this leave us in terms of practicing the lessons that we preach? From an applied perspective, the present theoretical analysis reveals several useful suggestions. As policy-making in organisations involves the process by which leaders and managers translate their vision into actions to deliver outcomes-desired changes in teams, departments and the organisation as a whole, it is clear that how vision is displayed in terms of decision making has to be done in fair and ethical ways. Indeed, new ideas and programs for innovation and development have the most change to be adopted by the organisation and its members when these members support, cooperate and comply with its authorities and leaders. Thus, the use of fair procedures in this translation process should foster cooperation from the exact members that the organisation and its leaders represent. Using this view on the process of implementing politics and new views then suggests that it would be beneficial for organisational authorities to include training zooming in on how to learn to enact fair procedures (see Skarlicki & Latham, 1996; for examples of such training).
On a related note, organisations and its members also expect that their authorities are representative of the organisation. Therefore, it would also help to train organisational leaders more in how to identify and recognise what the attributes and characteristics of an ever-changing organisation are, particularly in relationship to the characteristics of other organisations relevant to the own organisations. Usually organisational leadership uses the assumption that leaders shape the values of the group that they represent, but, as we have made clear, it is also necessary (maybe even more so) for leaders to recognise how the group itself defines its characteristics, which are often defined in terms of how they relate to other groups. It has been argued before that leaders may actively strive to embody the group prototype (van Knippenberg & Hogg, 2003), and there is empirical evidence for the operation of such processes in political contexts. Specifically, the use of relevant rhetoric can increase the idea that a leader represents a salient aspect of the group's identity, and it can also make certain aspects of a group's identity that the leader represents salient (Reicher & Hopkins, 1996a;1996b). The presently reported findings suggest that leaders may actively increase their own prototypicality in a variety of situations and by that, increase fairness expectations and the effectiveness of fairly enacted procedures in fostering cooperation among group members.
In organisations, group supervisors and managers do not emerge on the basis of their prototypicality, but are, in fact, appointed by higher management and thus may or may not represent the group's identity, depending on the nature of categorisations that become salient in particular circumstances.
Appointed managers have position power to influence their subordinates' behaviour in the desired direction. This derives from the ability to reward desired behaviour, to punish undesired behaviour, and also the ability to install felt obligations to cooperate (e.g., Rahim, 1988;Raven, Schwartzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). However, supervisors cannot solely rely on their position power to motivate their subordinates to cooperate because the use of such influence mechanisms often results in negative reactions (e.g., Mossholder, Bennett, Kemery, & Wesolowski, 1998). To be effective, leaders must thus also rely on other sources of influence (Mossholder et al., 1998), such as charisma and the potential to inform their subordinates of what is desired behaviour. Interestingly, prototypicality does not only make leaders informative about relevant group norms, but also increases their charisma in the eyes of their followers (Platow, van Knippenberg, Haslam, van Knippenberg, & Spears, 2006).
To conclude, being an organisational leader in a rapidly changing international market holds the recognition that new plans and ideas for the future of one's organisation or work group are most likely to be supported when leaders understand what the group or organisation they lead stands for and adapts to it, as this recognition may create a climate for fair and ethical leadership to prevail.