Yes, the leader-follower relationship and definition of socio-cognitive paradigm according to the article do share similar thoughts on leadership as a process of interaction with others. According to the author of this article, Gazi Islam, the cognitive views on leadership to some extent emphasize follower-based leadership theories It is this psychological process that leads people to give recognition to leaders and also follow those leaders who exhibit leadership qualities and attributes. The author argues however that recently the socio-cognitive paradigm has become more pronounced in as far as leadership ideals are concerned. The only difference inherent in these approaches to leadership is that the socio-cognitive paradigm is largely based on a psychoanalytic perspective to leadership which are normally absent in the traditional leader-follower approach. The socio-cognitive approach has also emerged as an important one in understanding the idea behind leader-follower approach. However, the two paradigms do differ in some ways despite the similarities involved in their approaches to leadership. According to Islam (2014), while the socio-cognitive approach to leadership is based on categorization process combining self-identities, the leader-follower paradigm though also based on cognitive views, is mainly based on the leadership qualities and attributes of the leader. Leader-follower approach derives from the performance of the leader and is more often subjective in character. It is based on attribution, perception and memory of leaders and what they stand for rather than just their mere self-identities.
The mirroring and idealizing concepts in psychodynamic approach share similar concepts as leaders being idealized self-visions in a number of ways. To begin with, the idealization of leadership has been cognitive towards a follower-based leadership approach. According to Islam (2014), “the notion of idealization does appear in some psychological leadership literature, for example the neo-charismatic leadership tradition” (p. 349). The idealized self-visions and concepts of psychodynamic approach both put emphasis on the normative and cognitive idealization basis of notions of ego-ideal, ideal-ego and super-ego as described by Freud. The author brings out this similarity by noting that leaders do not inspire following through their performance merits, but rather through embodiment of ability to achieve satisfaction involving the inner struggles of individual egos. The concept or notion of idealized influence is also another way through which the two are related in that leaders tend to command authority based on the kind of influence they exert on the society and followers. This is a purely self-visionary notion of leadership but also has a psychodynamic aspect in it based on the psychological aspects of the idea of influence on followers.
The primary and secondary narcissism compares and contrasts with constructive and reactive narcissists in several significant ways. To begin with, the two schemas compare in that in both cases, leaders are viewed as visions of perfection that should be followed due to their graceful charisma and leadership qualities. Further, both portray a leader as an inspirational and aspirational target personality based on the ego-ideal notion. However, the major difference or contrast between the two is that while the constructive and reactive forces are based on objective standards of leadership perception, the primary and secondary narcissism is based on the subjective element of how a leader is construed by their followers in terms of their qualities and performance. Also, the primary and secondary elements are concerned with the self and social cognition whereas the constructive or reactive narcissism concerns itself with self-identification and normativity.
References
Islam, G. (2014). Identities and ideals: Psychoanalytic dialogues of self and leadership. Leadership Journal, 10(3), 344-360. doi:10.1177/1742715013498404
