Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Journal of Digital Social Research

Special issue: Visual Politics

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2024): Special issue on methods in visual politics and protest: Deconstruction, reflexivity & femmix

Exploring leadership on Instagram: A visual model for online leadership analysis

DOI
https://doi.org/10.33621/jdsr.v6i2.205
Submitted
May 2, 2023
Published
2024-05-24

Abstract

Online visual communication is becoming an established and central component of citizens’ everyday life. User activity on large-scale platforms, such as Instagram, can be mapped by tracing the rise and fall of communities of practice that share different visual languages, aesthetic values and forms of leadership. Accordingly, the present study proposes an analytical model for the identification, measurement, and categorization of leadership on visual-based social networks, by asking: how does the digital performance of leaders on Instagram construct different forms of leadership? To answer this question, the Leadership Visual Performance Model (LVPM) will be presented as a theoretical tool to analyze and compare leadership performance on Social Networking Systems. While previous models mostly employed theme-based coding, this analytical tool relies on a set of structural indicators that enable a higher level of comparability across domains. To demonstrate, the LVPM will be employed to investigate the Instagram activity of Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson during the 2019 UK General Election. Findings show how the LVPM indicators enable us to highlight differences in leadership style, compare them and employ them to build a typology.

References

  1. Anden-Papadopoulos, K. (2013). Media witnessing and the ‘crowd-sourced video revolution’. Visual Communication, 12(3): 341–357.
  2. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In: Avolio, B.J. & Yammarino, F.J. (Eds). Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  3. Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746-771.
  4. Apel, D. 1999. “Cultural Battlegrounds: Weimar Photographic Narratives of War.” New German Critique (76): 49–84.
  5. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (Eds.). (2001). Developing potential across a full range of Leadership Tm: Cases on transactional and transformational leadership. Psychology Press.
  6. Avolio, B. J., Kahai, S., & Dodge, G. E. (2001). E-leadership: implications for theory, research, and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 615–668.
  7. Avolio, B. J., Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Baker, B. (2014). E-leadership: Re-examining transformations in leadership source and transmission. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 105-131.
  8. Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2019). The technological performance of populism. New Media & Society, 21(2), 376-397.
  9. Benjamin, W. (2008 [1936]). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction. Penguin UK.
  10. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, communication & society, 15(5), 739- 768.
  11. Burgess, J., Green, J., & Rebane, G. (2020). Agency and controversy in the YouTube community. In Handbuch Soziale Praktiken und Digitale Alltagswelten (pp. 105-116). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
  12. Burns, J. M. G. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
  13. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: how the communications revolution will change our lives. (No. C20-21). Harvard Business School.
  14. Casero-Ripollés, A., Feenstra, R. A., & Tormey, S. (2016). Old and new media logics in an electoral campaign: The case of Podemos and the two-way street mediatization of politics. The international journal of press/politics, 21(3), 378-397
  15. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Son
  16. De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International journal of advertising, 36(5), 798-828.
  17. Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary process. Free Press.
  18. Feldman, J. (2007). Constructing a shared Bible Land: Jewish Israeli guiding performances for Protestant pilgrims. American Ethnologist, 34(2), 351-374.
  19. Gregory, S. (2019). Cameras Everywhere Revisited: How Digital Technologies and Social Media Aid and Inhibit Human Rights Documentation and Advocacy. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 11(2), 373-392.
  20. Hokka, J., & Nelimarkka, M. (2019). Affective economy of national-populist images: Investigating national and transnational online networks through visual big data. New Media & Society, OnlineFirst.
  21. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. W. (1997). The social science study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.
  22. Jaynes, V. (2019). The social life of screenshots: the power of visibility in teen friendship groups. New Media & Society, 1461444819878806.
  23. Jenkins H, Purushotma R, Weigel M, et al. (2009) Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  24. Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2018). Spreadable media: Creating value and meaning in a networked culture (Vol. 15). NYU press.
  25. Lalancette, M., & Raynauld, V. (2019). The power of political image: Justin Trudeau, Instagram, and celebrity politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(7), 888-924.
  26. Leeker, M., Schipper, I., & Beyes, T. (2017). Performing the Digital. Performativity and Performance Studies in Digital Cultures. transcript.
  27. Mandavia, Megha, and Sanghamitra Kar. “TikTok's Rating Drops after Internet War Erupts between Influencers of Short Video Platform and YouTube.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 21 May 2020, economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/tiktoks-rating-drops-after-internet- war-erupts-between-competing-influencers/articleshow/75824824.cms.
  28. Markham, A., Buchanan, E., & AoIR Ethics Working Committee (2012). Ethical decision-making and Internet research: Version 2.0. Association of Internet Researchers. Retrieved from: https://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
  29. Martini, M. (2017). War against War!: pictures as means of social struggle in post-First World War Europe. Visual Studies, 32(4), 329-344.
  30. Martini, M. (2018). On the user’s side: YouTube and distant witnessing in the age of technology- enhanced mediability. Convergence, 24(1), 33-49.
  31. McLeod, M. (2002). Keeping the circle strong: Learning about Native American leadership. Tribal College, 13(4), 10.
  32. Miller, P., Wills, N., & Scanlan, M. (2013). Educational leadership on the social frontier: Developing Promise Neighborhoods in urban and tribal settings. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 543-575.
  33. Mitchell, W. J. T. (2005). What do pictures want?: The lives and loves of images. University of Chicago Press.
  34. Mortensen, M. (2015). Connective witnessing: Reconfiguring the relationship between the individual and the collective. Information, Communication & Society, 18(11), 1393-1406.
  35. Munoz, C. L., & Towner, T. L. (2018). The image is the message: Instagram marketing and the 2016 presidential primary season. In Social Media, Political Marketing and the 2016 US Election (pp. 84-112). Routledge.
  36. Newell, B. C. (2019). Context, visibility, and control: Police work and the contested objectivity of bystander video. New Media & Society, 21(1), 60-76.
  37. Poulakidakos, S., & Giannouli, I. (2019). Greek Political Leaders on Instagram: Between “Soft” and “Hard” Personalization. In Visual Political Communication (pp. 187-206). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  38. Ritzer G and Jurgenson N (2010) Production consumption prosumption the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 13–36.
  39. Russmann, U., Svensson, J., & Larsson, A. O. (2019). Political Parties and Their Pictures: Visual Communication on Instagram in Swedish and Norwegian Election Campaigns. In Visual Political Communication (pp. 119-144). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
  40. Thompson, J. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, culture & society, 22(6), 31-51. Thompson, J. B. (2005). The new visibility. Theory, culture & society, 22(6), 31-51.
  41. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440.
  42. Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and communication, 1(1), 2- 14.
  43. Warfield, K., Hoholuk, J., Vincent, B., & Camargo, A. D. (2019). Pics, Dicks, Tits, and Tats: negotiating ethics working with images of bodies in social media research. new media & society, 21(9), 2068-2086.