Theoretical Development

Transformational Leadership and Team Identification

Before we delve into discussing the relationship between transformational leadership and team identification, we believe it is necessary to clarify our conceptualization of these constructs in terms of their level of analysis, given that they have been conceptualized as both individual- and group-level constructs in previous studies. Team identification refers to the extent to which employees perceive oneness with or belongingness to a team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and, as such, reflects the extent to which the individual’s self-concept incorporates his or her team (Pratt, 1998). This construct is thus basically a psychological process located at the individual level (Kark et al., 2003; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 2000). Further, team identification entails a subjective claim or acceptance by the individual, whose identity is at stake (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Brickson, 2013; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), and therefore, individuals in the same team may develop varying degrees of identification with their team. For these reasons, team identification has been frequently conceived and assessed at the individual level of analysis (e.g., Chen, Zhu, & Zhou, 2015; Morrison, Wheeler-Smith, & Kamdar, 2011; van der Vegt, van de Vliert, & Oosterhof, 2003), and we follow this practice. Transformational leadership has both individual- and group-level components (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). Accordingly, researchers have investigated the construct at the individual level (e.g., Jiao, Richards, & Zhang, 2011; Liang & Chi, 2013), group level (e.g., Jiang, Gu, & Wang, 2015; Wu, Tsui, & Kinicki, 2010), or both at the individual and the group levels (e.g., Chi & Pan, 2012; Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2014). In the current study, we view it as an individual-level construct, given that we are interested in understanding leaders’ influence on the individual phenomenon of team identification. According to social identity theory, the self-concept consists of a personal identity comprising unique characteristics, such as abilities and interests, and a collective identity comprising salient group classifications (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Central to our current discussion is the dynamic nature of the self-concept: it is dynamic in that the salience (i.e., active use) of specific self-concepts is contingent in a given situation and the cues therein; that is, only a situationally relevant and meaningful portion of the self-concept governs individuals’ behaviors in the present moment (Hogg & Terry, 2000). In addition, individuals’ self-concepts may change over time as they learn about themselves through their own experiences and reflections, as well as through validation by other people (Baumeister, 1998; Bem, 1972).