Leaders build cohesion by recategorizing conflicts in shared terms.

Evidence

Here we see that the categories that DMp was working to create, and encouraging others to embrace, were those of workers (incorporating both prisoners and guards) vs. management (incorporating the experimenters and the BBC) and that the shared vision he was seeking to promote was of a workers’ struggle for enhanced conditions. — Stephen Reicher, S. Alexander Haslam, and Nick Hopkins, Social identity and the dynamics of…, 90

Categorization

• XREF: This is the exact ‘positive-project cohesion rather than excluded-outgroup cohesion’ move the reader is probing — recasting an us-vs-them prison split into a workers-vs-management frame so prisoners and guards unite against a common redefined ‘them’. — connects to: Leaders lead by representing a consensus that shared identity makes possible. — Stephen Reicher, S. Alexander Haslam, and Nick Hopkins, Social identity and the dynamics of…, 67; Effective inclusive leaders build consensus, coordination and shared structure. — Stephen Reicher, S. Alexander Haslam, and Nick Hopkins, Social identity and the dynamics of…, 96; Group cohesion grows from networked personal bonds, not mere shared categories — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor: Unconditional…, 52 (+4 more)

Related

• Effective inclusive leaders build consensus, coordination and shared structure. (similarity 0.88)
• Leadership structure tracks the strength of shared social identity over time. (similarity 0.83)
• Leadership is cognitively framed as a group-level rather than relational process (similarity 0.83)
• Leadership success depends on granting followers effective agency. (similarity 0.82)
• Leadership requires both shared identity and consensus on who best embodies the group view (similarity 0.82)
• A leader unites subordinates by recategorizing them into a shared worker identity (similarity 0.81)
• Leaders lead by representing a consensus that shared identity makes possible. (similarity 0.81)
• Leaders convert social identity into social reality by initiating group and societal structures (similarity 0.80)
• Group cohesion grows from networked personal bonds, not mere shared categories (similarity 0.80)
• Shared identity shifts over time track leadership structure growth and decline (similarity 0.79)
• Leadership must be understood as a group process rather than a leader-follower dyad (similarity 0.79)
• Leadership requires shared identity but also active identity entrepreneurship by leaders. (similarity 0.79)
• A clear in-group representative position enables decisive collective action. (similarity 0.79)
• Intergroup competition boosts intragroup cohesion while shared tasks restore cooperation (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Conflict destructive at one level can integrate the larger group #expands (0.80) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 280
• Group cohesion grows from networked personal bonds, not mere shared categories #qualifies (0.75) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 52
• Leadership is cognitively framed as a group-level rather than relational process #exemplifies (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2356
• Intergroup competition boosts intragroup cohesion while shared tasks restore cooperation #expands (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 136
• Many political and ideological acts serve organizational coherence needs #corroborates (0.72)