Cultural artifacts and traditional rituals support collective memory and help develop self-identity (Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995; Jacobs, 2011). With the use of artifacts and rituals such as cultural, linguistic, or religious customs, individuals are able to relive the past, connect with the deceased, activate a belonging to a cultural group, and confirm their social identity (Beristain et al., 2000; Giladi and Bell, 2013). Artifacts and rituals enable individuals to connect with their historical trauma and their past and help group members sustain a social identity and connection with their culture. These artifacts and rituals give way to associations of feelings (i.e., anger, sadness) connected with the collective trauma. These feelings, in turn, can play a role in the development of the descendant’s identity (Hirsch, 2008; Sagi-Schwartz et al., 2008). Social learning (and in some cases social identity) is a mechanism by which cultural rituals or artifacts pertaining to a group are transmitted to the individual.

Giladi and Bell state that rituals and artifacts may promote determination, increased empathy, or the inclination to choose a profession that helps people, resilience, and a deep need to pass on the legacy of the trauma (Giladi and Bell, 2013). Cultural rituals and artifacts intensify the emotions shared by a collective group, giving them a sense of solidarity and an increased validation of their loss. Halbwachs (1992) and Beristain et al. (2000) deduce that rituals enable individuals to confirm their social identities by reconfirming the emotions that stem from collective traumas, thus enhancing self-esteem and social integration (Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995; Hirst and Manier, 2008).

Leaders who are third-generation descendants of collective trauma may not manifest symptoms of pathology, but they may be affected by the trauma that their forefathers and their ethnic group survived through the memories transmitted by cultural, linguistic, or religious mechanisms. The transmission of collective trauma is then processed through artifacts or rituals to communities, and eventually families; these artifacts or rituals help individuals and families maintain a connection with the group or community (Bar-On et al., 1998; Wiseman et al., 2006). We therefore propose the following:

Members of a community who share emotions refer to the term collective emotion (Barsade, 2002; Barsade and Gibson, 2012). Members of the group experience the same emotions, which also describe the cohesion of that group. Research in group processes and interpersonal behavior has shown that simply being a member of a group can cause an individual to experience the effects of group-based emotions (von Scheve and Ismer, 2013).

Communities and groups that have endured collective trauma are shaped by their group’s historical stories, cultural events, and memorial ceremonies (Schiff et al., 2001). These stories and events develop collective memories (Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995) to explain the representations and images with which a group associates itself (Hirst and Manier, 2008; Zembylas and Bekerman, 2015). These events may not be part of the cultural identity as explained in the previous section but instead may activate a story relevant to the individual’s history. Some researchers call this not only collective memory but also cultural memory, as the members of the group collectively feel that their identity and culture have been threatened. This threat leaves a mark on their collective consciousness, which also helps community members develop their collective identity (Schiff et al., 2001; Wohl et al., 2006; Hirst and Echterhoff, 2008; Ricoeur, 2009; Wohl and Branscombe, 2009).

According to Volkan (2001), a community or a group has a “mental representation” of its historical past, and a group that has endured a historical collective trauma shares losses and the emotions of mourning. Even if the individuals in that group have their own individual mechanisms of reacting to the collective trauma, they all share the mental representation of the trauma. Collective groups hold commemorations and memorials, which reactivate the emotions and anxieties of group members related to their perpetrators. Collective trauma, an event that may have taken place years or even a century ago, may feel as though it took place only recently, and this sense of recency also forms part of the group’s collective identity (Volkan, 2001; Fromm, 2012).

Communities actively attempt to maintain their culture, language, and religion to ensure that the legacy of their ancestors survives, fomenting a sense of retribution toward the aggressor state (Bezo and Maggi, 2015). Collective memory is relived through commemorations and rituals (Halbwachs, 1992), allowing individuals to maintain an identity as part of the group (Halbwachs, 1992; Assmann and Czaplicka, 1995; Paez et al., 2015).

Leaders who are members of a collective group develop their social identities through group membership (Schiff et al., 2001; Hirst and Echterhoff, 2008; Ricoeur, 2009; Wohl and Branscombe, 2009) because communities provide historical images or recollections of the collective trauma. Those images or recollections impact community and family dynamics, which then impact the leader as an individual member of that community or family (Ross, 2001). We therefore propose the following:

Memory transmitted by family members helps orient the individual; it is memory that helps develop the identity of the leader (Eyerman, 2004). Stories told over time (or the story communicated through silence) are represented, communicated, and expressed through various mechanisms (Wohl and Branscombe, 2009; Vollhardt and Bilewicz, 2013) such as through stories told, mournings, traditional songs, and books or movies. The family carries (consciously and unconsciously) the values, myths, and beliefs to the next generation, thus impacting the identity of the descendant.

Shared images or narratives of a collective traumatic event, such as genocide or war, can be transferred to descendants who, in turn, process this mourning (Volkan, 2009). Danieli suggests that trauma is transmitted as a family legacy regardless of whether family members talk about the event (Danieli, 1998). He identifies several effects or “themes” in second- and third-generation Holocaust descendants such as increased responsiveness to, and identification with, the Holocaust as experienced by their parents and grandparents. Kupelian also examines transgenerational issues among Armenian descendants of the 1915 genocide and finds that members of the third generations, who have heard stories from their grandparents about the injustice and how this genocide has yet to be acknowledged by the Turkish state, are overwhelmed with pain for the suffering of their forefathers (Kupelian et al., 1998; Bilali, 2013).

Many collective trauma survivors have refrained from talking about the events they witnessed during the genocide; they have expressed heavy emotions or sadness that may not even have been verbalized but that were nevertheless explicitly felt by their children (second generation), making the latter sensitive to their parents and their survival stories, told or untold (Bar-On et al., 1998; Wiseman et al., 2002). Even when the family does not communicate about the past, the results of the transmission of trauma can still be evidenced through emotions that are unconsciously displaced to the next generations (Dalgaard and Montgomery, 2015).

The leader who is a third- or fourth-generation descendant of collective trauma may not have lived through the trauma directly, but may be able to process emotions that have been transferred to them through the verbal or nonverbal recounting of narratives. This leader is likely to have noticed or felt the pain of their parents and grandparents, whose healing processes may have been ongoing. The values and even behaviors lived by their forefathers are transmitted to these leaders (Sanchez-Burks and Huy, 2009). We therefore propose the following:

Having identified three nonexhaustive repositories of collective trauma that are capitalized in the acculturation of descendants, even from a young age, in the next section we describe the channels through which these collective trauma repositories are transmitted transgenerationally.

Social learning theory (more recently labeled social cognitive theory), as developed by Bandura, explains how people learn from each other through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura, 1969, 1989). According to this theory, observational learning begins during childhood as the child imitates her caregivers (Grusec, 1992). Based on this childhood learning, the behavior of an eventual leader is processed and impacted (Miller and Morris, 2016), as the leader learns by copying the values and behaviors of their models. This theory helps shed light on how situational influences such as role models can influence the characteristics of leaders (Brown and Treviño, 2006).

The social learning approach is grounded in the idea that behaviors are developed based on observations made in social contexts. As understood by Keller, leaders assume the values that they have observed in family settings and social environments (Keller, 2003). As a basis of this theory, we can assume that the emotions and narratives of collective trauma transmitted to children and grandchildren can facilitate the learning of emotions and the development of similar behaviors; eventually, these emotions and narratives should be identifiable in the values of descendants.

We propose that through the social learning channel, a collective group’s cultural rituals and artifacts reinforce the social-cultural influence on the members of the group by activating the transmission of the collective trauma through the observance or practice of rituals or use of the collective’s cultural artifacts (Beristain et al., 2000; Jacobs, 2011). Our proposition suggests the following:

To understand whether leaders associated with a collective trauma implicitly or explicitly associate themselves with their collective group, we use social identity theory (Hogg, 2001) because it helps give meaning to this phenomenon. Leaders who are members of a collective or who share a collective historical trauma are presumed to have distinct characteristics that are connected to that group. According to social identity theory, a leader’s membership in a group shapes their attitudes, feelings, and behaviors (Ashforth and Mael, 1989), and these attributes mirror the group’s essence (van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003). According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), history plays an important role in the development or formation of identity. Collective historical narratives, through commemorations and events, help provide a national identity and social cohesion (Korostelina, 2015). When leaders identify themselves with a group of people, they associate themselves with the characteristics of that group, and this association reinforces the antecedents of identification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989).

Intergroup emotions and behaviors can surface when leaders feel that a salient part of their identity is connected to membership in a group; this feeling leads to group-based emotions even if the individual is not an active member of the group (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). A leader’s identity with an ethnic group or with a collective history can predict leader values and behaviors (Johnson et al., 2012a).

We propose that through the social identity channel, community events, or ceremonies that relive or reassert the group’s collective trauma allow descendants to identify themselves with the legacy of that group, which helps sustain and reinforce values and behaviors that reflect their cultural heritage (Cox et al., 1991; Phinney et al., 2000). Therefore, we propose the following:

The key foundation of psychodynamic theory is that all humans develop emotional and unconscious processes during childhood, and these processes help in the development of emotions, personalities, and behaviors (McLeod and Kettner-Polley, 2016).

The systems psychodynamic approach, which is linked to psychodynamic theory, explains that a child’s relationship with caregivers and home environments may consciously and unconsciously influence traits and qualities that are developed in their adult life and that are not clearly identified by the child’s consciousness (Kets de Vries, 2011, 2014). The “inner theatre” is a concept within the psychodynamic approach that explains how the people encountered in childhood influence emotions and experiences in the leader’s later life; these emotions and experiences, in turn, influence behavioral patterns (Neumann and Hirschhorn, 1999; Kets de Vries, 2003; Kets de Vries et al., 2013). Psychodynamic theory help us understand that leaders may incorporate behavioral patterns developed through psychological imprints from their early life and that caregivers may have affected the child’s social development (Marquis and Tilcsik, 2013).

Volkan uses psychodynamic theory to assess more closely how a sense of commonality and shared understanding is developed when an individual is part of a large group (national, religious or ethnic) (Volkan, 2001). When an individual is part of a large group (national, religious, or ethnic), there is a sense of commonality and shared understanding. Numerous studies show how individual responses to trauma result in anxiety and expectations that are passed on from parent to child, affecting the child’s sense of self and identity (Bar-On et al., 1998; Lev-Wiesel, 2007; Coles, 2011). To this effect, the leader who is part of an ethnic group that has suffered a collective trauma may have absorbed sensitivities, emotions, and characteristics modeled by their caregivers and resulting from stories told or untold, or traditions carried on, in response to the trauma.

We propose that through the psychodynamic channel, leaders who are descendants of a collective trauma absorb the values lived, felt, or told through stories told by their caregivers or collective family members (Crawford, 2014). We summarize this in the following proposition:

Drawing on theories such as social learning, social identity, and psychodynamics, we suggest that the transgenerational transmission of collective trauma can take place through three processes: cultural rituals and artifacts, community events, and family narratives. All three of these processes are important mechanisms through which collective traumas are transmitted, influencing who leaders become, and how their cognition and behaviors are shaped. In the next section, we identify several values influenced by collective trauma that can shape leader cognition and behaviors, and which can impact how an organization is led. These are also the values (and possibly behaviors) that must be further researched if we are to understand the implications of the transmission of collective trauma on leader development, namely, leader values.

Resilience is the characteristic that allows individuals to sustain, change, or modify their responses based on stressful events or situations (Bonanno, 2004; Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). The effect of resilience is a common theme in the literature discussing the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors (Baron et al., 1996), who come from families with more open communication styles and in which the child-parent dynamic is more relaxed. Braga et al. demonstrate that national and cultural values and collective connections relevant to the collective trauma lead children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors to develop resilience, particularly when they are faced with the need to defend or safeguard their nation, religion, and/or culture (Braga et al., 2012). In other words, trauma-related stories that are told to, or memories felt by, descendants of the collective trauma allow them to attain “inherited lessons” from their families and community members (Branscombe et al., 2015).

The transgenerational transmission of trauma does not necessarily signify a negative or pathological effect (van IJzendoorn et al., 2003; Levav et al., 2007; Sagi-Schwartz et al., 2008), but it can stimulate resilience and a need to pass on the legacy of the trauma. In other words, even if there is no pathology or negative effect, the trauma is still transmitted. Something is passed on to the next generation, and it can be in the form of posttraumatic growth and resilience (Giladi and Bell, 2013). Psychodynamic and social learning theories help us understand that third-generation survivors understand that there is emotional difficulty in addressing a traumatic past. This understanding has made it easier for third generation survivors to accept difficult personalities in the family, helped them appreciate strong family ties, and given them mechanisms with which to handle stressful situations (Kellermann, 2008).

Resilient leaders are considered effective at addressing change and innovation challenges in today’s world (Lane et al., 2013; Matzenberger, 2013) because they are able to rebound from negative situations and can adapt to changing or stressful demands (Tugade and Fredrickson, 2004). Individual and organizational behavioral perspectives can help explain why leaders are resilient and whether leader resilience is triggered by specific organizational actors or organizational contexts that increase resilience in leaders, who are descendants of collective trauma. We therefore propose the following:

Forgiveness (and its opposite, vengefulness) is a highly researched topic. Forgiveness is relevant when building professional relationships based on trust, but when leaders have vengeful emotions due to their traumatic past, their ability to exercise authentic or exemplary leadership may be hindered.

In attempting to overcome sad or damaging emotions triggered by the trauma experienced by family members, forgiveness helps to restore peace and create a culture of empathy (van Dierendonck and Patterson, 2015). When third-generation leaders have lived or felt the pain of surviving collective trauma from their parents and grandparents through stories told, memorial events, or cultural rituals, there is a need to feel that forgiveness heals painful memories and lead to inner peace.

Forgiveness may be an almost impossible action for descendants of collective groups whose trauma has not been acknowledged. The pain that lingers on from the trauma of forefathers–and the lack of acknowledgement of the trauma by the perpetrators–hinders the process of finding peace and cultivates vengefulness (Staub et al., 2005), and this can impact how a descendant of collective trauma performs as a leader or executive. This value–forgiveness–draws our attention to differences among leaders. A particular concern highlighted in this article is that a significant body of research on leader forgiveness rests on untested assumptions about the ethical behavior of leaders–assumptions related to different forgiveness behaviors exhibited by leaders.

In the authentic transformational leadership and ethical leadership literature, there is evidence that leaders demonstrate values such as forgiveness due to their grounded connection to family and community, and in relation to their cultural beliefs (Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999; Caldwell and Dixon, 2009; Fry and Kriger, 2009). We therefore propose the following:

Empathy is the ability to genuinely feel and understand the emotion and experience of another (Johnson et al., 2012a). While it may be difficult for victims of collective trauma to be empathetic given the physical, mental, and emotional pain they have endured, descendants of collective trauma may–based on the testimonies or narratives of their victim ancestors–have the capacity to be empathetic to others who have endured similar hardships. In many cases, and when using the social identity lens, empathy is developed when narratives of collective trauma include examples of kindness and goodness perpetuated by out-group members, or members of the persecuting group who helped victims escape the trauma, for instance.

Scholars have assessed how individual trauma increases empathetic behavior. Frazier assesses how exposure to trauma leads to increased spirituality and empathy for others who have been in similar situations (Frazier et al., 2013). Zembylas explains the process of transforming trauma narratives of the past (i.e., told by survivors or descendants of survivors through narratives or commemorative rituals) into values of empathy as a way for victims to come to terms with emotionally painful events (Zembylas, 2007).

Empathetic behaviors are evident when individuals are sensitive to circumstances to which they can relate, such as discrimination or harassment (Sosik and Megerian, 1999). According to social identity and social learning theories, leaders who have collective identities may feel the need to help members of a group or a collective by ensuring that the group benefits from their leadership role. Group or collective empathetic behaviors support leader members of the group to model similar behaviors (Johnson et al., 2012a). We therefore propose the following:

Leaders hold positions from which they exert power in their organizations, and they have the opportunity to establish an environment that is fair and just. Because family and collective historical narratives, such as collective trauma, can shape and develop an individual’s identity (social identity), which then provides a clearer sense of self-knowledge and integrity. For individuals who are members of a collective group, collective stories provide the justification to lead with a sense of purpose (Shamir et al., 2005). Drawing on previous research (Avolio et al., 2004; Shamir et al., 2005; Day and Harrison, 2007), we can speculate that collective stories of trauma can both lead to greater self-clarity and purpose and become a source of internal guidance to individuals in their roles as just leaders.

When individuals share a collective history or a collective trauma, they can be collectively motivated by a sense of justice that connects them to their memory of their ancestors. A rich sociocultural family or community environment can nourish descendants with the sense of self (Sparrowe, 2005) and a connection with a sense of justice as minorities in their adopted countries or communities.

Leaders whose values have been transmitted by family narratives, community events, or cultural factors may use their collective trauma as a moral compass (Schwarz, 2000; Turner and Mavin, 2008). We therefore propose the following:

Research on authentic leadership has shown that personal history (family influences, role models, and early life challenges) and trigger events influence leaders (Gardner et al., 2005). Collective trauma and the narratives heard about that trauma in family and community settings may impel leader descendants to actively demonstrate perseverance. Grandchildren of collective trauma survivors, in contrast to their parents, try to ensure that they live successful lives to prove that they have excelled despite their past trauma. According to social learning and psychodynamic theories, third- and fourth-generations, having seen how their parents attempted to rebuild their lives, attempt to help sustain the legacy of their forefathers and safeguard their professional success (Bar-On et al., 1998). Prior research has identified antecedents and trigger events that can support the individual’s personal growth and development, suggesting that leaders can develop characteristics such as determination or perseverance (Avolio and Gardner, 2005; Shamir and Eilam, 2005; Turner and Mavin, 2008).

Values of perseverance may be developed due to a sense of purpose and a need to triumph over the pain or failure that an individual has seen through their caregivers (psychodynamically). The leader who has grown up in a family or community setting that has a background of collective trauma may have heard about a father or a grandmother who lost their livelihood and had to work hard to rebuild their life and sustain a cultural or ethnic legacy that was almost lost, which may explain or justify the development of hardworking and self-determined behavior in that leader.

In summary, values help provide the leader with a sense of purpose and generate behaviors that are relevant to leadership (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Lord and Brown, 2001). Leaders who have been exposed to family or community-related narratives, events or rituals may have developed values and behaviors that have been transmitted to them by their forefathers who were exposed to a collective trauma such as genocide. Further research is required to confirm what is transmitted to leader descendants and how stories, memorials and artifacts may have implicitly or explicitly shaped their values and behaviors. A potential subject for research in organizational theory and leadership theory is to assess how collective trauma helps develop leadership talent that supports organizational performance and impacts organizational behavior (Day, 2001; Solansky, 2015). We therefore propose the following:

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.