Developing engaged and 'teamful' leaders: A randomized controlled trial of the 5R identity leadership program.

The social identity approach to leadership argues that leaders' capacity to influence and inspire others is grounded in a shared sense of social identity (or 'us-ness') that those leaders create, advance, represent, and embed for the groups they lead. The approach therefore argues that a key task for leaders is to develop insights and skills of (social) identity leadership that allow them to motivate and mobilize groups and transform them into a potent social and organizational force. In contrast to other approaches and programs which focus on leaders' leader identity (their 'I-ness'), the 5R leadership development program supports the development of leaders' social identity by raising awareness of the importance of social identity ('we-ness') for leadership and taking leaders through structured activities that help them build engaged and inclusive teams. The present research assessed the benefits of facilitated and learner self-directed versions of the 5R program (Ns = 27, 22 respectively) relative to a no-treatment control (N = 27). Results (including those of an intention-to-treat analysis; N = 76) indicated that, relative to leaders in the control condition, those who participated in both forms of 5R reported large increases in identity leadership knowledge, as well as medium-sized increases in both team engagement (a compound factor comprised of team identification, team OCB, team efficacy, and work engagement) and 'teamfulness' (comprised of team reflexivity, team psychological safety, team goal clarity, and inclusive team climate). We reflect on the importance of teamfulness for leadership and team functioning and on the value of programs that help leaders develop this.

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns.

Recent theorizing suggests that the 4Ns - that is, the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice - are common rationalizations people use to defend their choice of eating meat. However, such theorizing has yet to be subjected to empirical testing. Six studies were conducted on the 4Ns. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrated that the 4N classification captures the vast majority (83%-91%) of justifications people naturally offer in defense of eating meat. In Study 2, individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tended also to objectify (dementalize) animals and included fewer animals in their circle of moral concern, and this was true independent of social dominance orientation. Subsequent studies (Studies 3-5) showed that individuals who endorsed the 4Ns tend not to be motivated by ethical concerns when making food choices, are less involved in animal-welfare advocacy, less driven to restrict animal products from their diet, less proud of their animal-product decisions, tend to endorse Speciesist attitudes, tend to consume meat and animal products more frequently, and are highly committed to eating meat. Furthermore, omnivores who strongly endorsed the 4Ns tended to experience less guilt about their animal-product decisions, highlighting the guilt-alleviating function of the 4Ns.