Leadership is at the heart of the social movement, Says Ganz (Ganz, 2010). Leaders are “those who rise in rank, who take responsibility, who are very concerned about engagement, who begin to allow others to join them in achieving a goal under very uncertain conditions.” Instead of focusing on the question “What`s my subject?” , successful leaders first ask “Who are my people?” because movements are built by the people whose things are done – something they have to define themselves, Ganz says. The purpose of the Guide is to determine what it takes for (powerless) people to create the power they need to solve their problem, not how to mobilize the resources of the powerful to solve it. Our findings may be controversial in the literature on whether group differences in social dominance orientation primarily reflect group differences in group identification. In other words, group differences in the dominant social orientation may occur because dominant groups identify dominant groups more than with subordinate groups (Sidanius, Pratto, Rabinowitz, 1994; Wilson and Liu, 2003). Some have argued that the dominant social orientation is only a substitute for group identification (Schmitt, Branscombe, Caps, 2003; Reynolds and Turner, 2006). Our results provide two kinds of evidence against the idea that the orientation of social dominance is a dominant group identification or group identification. First, Schmitt et al. (2003) observed that American students think of race rather than gender when responding to the orientation of social domination. If the orientation levels of social dominance are due to group identification with the largest type of group differentiation, The results of Schmitt et al.s imply that group differences in the social orientation of dominance between ethnic and racial groups should be greater than between gender groups, at least in the United States.
On the other hand, we found greater gender differences in mainstream social orientation than racial differences, both in the United States and globally. Second, group identification is enhanced by the motivation to avoid uncertainty (p.B Hogg, 2000). Mullin and Hogg (1999), for example, showed that people who felt experimentally inseurized were more identified with and evaluated smaller groups to which they were subsequently assigned. With this reasoning, to understand group differences in dominant social orientation, and again assuming that the dominant social orientation is an agent of group identification, it should be greater in countries where insecurity, group identification and group differences are greater in the dominant social orientation. Nevertheless, our results showed exactly the opposite patterns: countries that avoided less insecurity had greater gender differences in social dominating orientation and slightly greater ethnic/racial differences. Overall, we have two types of evidence against the idea that the social orientation of domination is a substitute for group identification or that the size of group differences in terms of dominant social orientation is driven by identification with dominant groups.