This passage is adapted from Niklas K Steffens and S. Alexander Haslam, “Power Through ‘Us.’” © 2013 Steffens, Haslam.
The oratory of great political leaders has been subjected to
meticulous analysis by psychologists, linguists, political
scientists, and historians. This research observes that these
leaders tend to use distinct rhetorical strategies. For example,
research suggests that successful leaders act as entrepreneurs of
identity such that their speeches serve to cultivate a sense of
‘us’ that is shared with potential followers. However, prior
research has not established whether political leaders’ use of
such strategies is actually related to their ability to secure
follower endorsement. Here we examine whether successful
candidates in national general elections make greater use of
we-referencing language than their losing counterparts.
In line with common media portrayals, classical leadership
research generally focuses on the (extraordinary) traits and
capabilities of individual leaders as “great men.” In these
terms, leaders are understood to be superior beings who
succeed because they are different to, and better than, other
more ordinary mortals. However, more recent research has
shifted focus away from the leader as a great ‘I’ by stressing
the importance of followers and the group as a whole to the
leadership process. This places greater emphasis on the ‘we’ of
leadership, and is exemplified by work examining the role that
a sense of shared group membership plays in allowing leaders
and followers to influence each other.
In this regard, social identity theory asserts that individuals
are able to think and act not just as ‘I’ and ‘me’ (in terms of
personal identity) but also as ‘we’ and ‘us’ (in terms of social
identity). Moreover, it asserts that when people perceive
themselves and others in terms of shared social identity, this
provides the basis for a range of important group and
organizational behaviors. One of these is leadership. In line
with this claim, a large body of research has shown that it is
leaders’ capacity to be perceived to advance the interests of a
social identity that is shared with followers that enables them to
secure support for their vision and motivate others to help turn
it into reality. Such analysis suggests that leaders are successful
not because they demonstrate their individual superiority or
because they think and act in terms of ‘I’, but rather because,
and to the extent that, they are perceived to think and be acting
in terms of the collective ‘we’.
Speaking to these claims, empirical evidence indicates that
leaders’ increased social identification with a collective (i.e.,
the degree to which they have internalized the collective as part
of their sense of self) is positively related to followers’
favorable reactions to them. Along similar lines, experimental
studies have shown that when leaders use more we-referencing
language followers are more likely to see them as charismatic.
Consistent with the idea that we-referencing language proves
helpful to leaders outside the laboratory, there is also evidence
that in the United States over the last two centuries references
to the collective entities ‘we’, ‘people’ and ‘America’ have
increased substantially in both State of the Union and
Presidential inaugural addresses.
However, prior research that has explored these ideas has
tended to hone in selectively on exceptional addresses or on the
oratory of particularly successful leaders (e.g., those in high
political office). As a result, it is unclear whether we-
referencing language is something that is broadly associated
with, and predictive of, leaders’ future success. More generally,
it is unclear exactly how widespread such strategies are and
there are questions about whether effects produced in
laboratory studies of undergraduate students are applicable to
the cut-and-thrust of leadership in the world at large.
In order to address these lacunae*, we sought to discover
whether there is any more compelling evidence that political
leaders’ use of collective pronouns has a concrete bearing on
their success. One resource that we identified as having the
potential to prove useful for this purpose is recently released
digitized transcripts of all the official campaign speeches made
by leaders of the two major political parties for all general
elections held in Australia since the creation of the Federal
Parliament in 1901. This provided us with an opportunity to
examine whether leaders’ use of we-referencing (vs. I-
referencing) language was a predictor of subsequent election
victory. Whereas classical leadership models might lead one to
expect that leaders who communicate a strong sense of their
personal identity (through references to ‘I’ and ‘me’) would be
more successful, the social identity approach leads us to predict
that success would be more likely to follow from leaders’
invocation of shared group identity in their speeches (through
their use of ‘we’ and ‘us’).
*lacunae: unfilled spaces or gaps
The oratory of great political leaders has been subjected to
meticulous analysis by psychologists, linguists, political
scientists, and historians. This research observes that these
leaders tend to use distinct rhetorical strategies. For example,
research suggests that successful leaders act as entrepreneurs of
identity such that their speeches serve to cultivate a sense of
‘us’ that is shared with potential followers. However, prior
research has not established whether political leaders’ use of
such strategies is actually related to their ability to secure
follower endorsement. Here we examine whether successful
candidates in national general elections make greater use of
we-referencing language than their losing counterparts.
In line with common media portrayals, classical leadership
research generally focuses on the (extraordinary) traits and
capabilities of individual leaders as “great men.” In these
terms, leaders are understood to be superior beings who
succeed because they are different to, and better than, other
more ordinary mortals. However, more recent research has
shifted focus away from the leader as a great ‘I’ by stressing
the importance of followers and the group as a whole to the
leadership process. This places greater emphasis on the ‘we’ of
leadership, and is exemplified by work examining the role that
a sense of shared group membership plays in allowing leaders
and followers to influence each other.
In this regard, social identity theory asserts that individuals
are able to think and act not just as ‘I’ and ‘me’ (in terms of
personal identity) but also as ‘we’ and ‘us’ (in terms of social
identity). Moreover, it asserts that when people perceive
themselves and others in terms of shared social identity, this
provides the basis for a range of important group and
organizational behaviors. One of these is leadership. In line
with this claim, a large body of research has shown that it is
leaders’ capacity to be perceived to advance the interests of a
social identity that is shared with followers that enables them to
secure support for their vision and motivate others to help turn
it into reality. Such analysis suggests that leaders are successful
not because they demonstrate their individual superiority or
because they think and act in terms of ‘I’, but rather because,
and to the extent that, they are perceived to think and be acting
in terms of the collective ‘we’.
Speaking to these claims, empirical evidence indicates that
leaders’ increased social identification with a collective (i.e.,
the degree to which they have internalized the collective as part
of their sense of self) is positively related to followers’
favorable reactions to them. Along similar lines, experimental
studies have shown that when leaders use more we-referencing
language followers are more likely to see them as charismatic.
Consistent with the idea that we-referencing language proves
helpful to leaders outside the laboratory, there is also evidence
that in the United States over the last two centuries references
to the collective entities ‘we’, ‘people’ and ‘America’ have
increased substantially in both State of the Union and
Presidential inaugural addresses.
However, prior research that has explored these ideas has
tended to hone in selectively on exceptional addresses or on the
oratory of particularly successful leaders (e.g., those in high
political office). As a result, it is unclear whether we-
referencing language is something that is broadly associated
with, and predictive of, leaders’ future success. More generally,
it is unclear exactly how widespread such strategies are and
there are questions about whether effects produced in
laboratory studies of undergraduate students are applicable to
the cut-and-thrust of leadership in the world at large.
In order to address these lacunae*, we sought to discover
whether there is any more compelling evidence that political
leaders’ use of collective pronouns has a concrete bearing on
their success. One resource that we identified as having the
potential to prove useful for this purpose is recently released
digitized transcripts of all the official campaign speeches made
by leaders of the two major political parties for all general
elections held in Australia since the creation of the Federal
Parliament in 1901. This provided us with an opportunity to
examine whether leaders’ use of we-referencing (vs. I-
referencing) language was a predictor of subsequent election
victory. Whereas classical leadership models might lead one to
expect that leaders who communicate a strong sense of their
personal identity (through references to ‘I’ and ‘me’) would be
more successful, the social identity approach leads us to predict
that success would be more likely to follow from leaders’
invocation of shared group identity in their speeches (through
their use of ‘we’ and ‘us’).
*lacunae: unfilled spaces or gaps