Innovation Credit: When Can Leaders Oppose Their Group's Norms?

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Kent Academic Repository Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 2008, Vol. 95, No. 3, 662–678 0022-3514/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.662 Innovation Credit: When Can Leaders Oppose Their Group’s Norms? Dominic Abrams and Georgina Randsley de Moura Jose´ M. Marques University of Kent University of Porto Paul Hutchison London Metropolitan University Two preliminary studies and 5 experiments examined judgments of leaders who challenge their group’s norms. Participants viewed information about group members whose attitudes were normative or deviated in a pronormative or antinormative direction. The antinorm member was identified as (a) either a nonleader or an established leader (Study 1), (b) an ex-leader (Studies 2 and 5), or (c) a future leader (Studies 3, 4, and 5). Antinorm future leaders were judged more positively and were granted greater innovation credit (license to innovate and remuneration) relative to antinorm members, ex-leaders, and established leaders. Results are discussed in terms of the idea that leadership can accrue from prototypicality and can also confer the right to define prescriptive norms. However, innovation credit is only granted in the case of future leaders. Keywords: leadership, deviance, prototypicality, innovation, subjective group dynamics A challenge for many leaders in organizations is to drive orga- idiosyncrasy credits had been accumulated by being loyal to the nizational change and take the group in new directions (cf. Coser, group, the leader should be permitted to introduce innovation and 1962; Homans, 1974). In addition, leaders such as those represent- changes. However, it is unclear whether there may be some con- ing unions or management sometimes have to resist the more ditions, independent of the leader’s actions or performance but extreme demands of the group they represent to negotiate settle- attributable merely to the leader’s relationship to other members, ments (Stephenson, 1991). Political leaders, such as Gerry Adams that might affect the generosity or punitiveness with which leaders and David Trimble in Northern Ireland, regularly have to reach an are treated by other members. agreement by shifting toward acceptance of a position preferred by This article examines what happens when a leader resists the their opposite number’s group. Such acts of independence may put mode of opinion within a group, leaning instead toward that of an the leader’s position at risk and result in the leader being dese- outgroup (antinorm deviance). We use the subjective group dy- lected or eliminated from the group. David Trimble, despite having namics (SGD) framework (Marques, Paéz, & Abrams, 1998) to won the Nobel Peace Prize, lost his position as leader of the Ulster investigate how group members respond to antinormative leaders Unionists. and whether responses depend on the phase of the leader’s role. Hollander (1958; Hollander & Julian, 1970) outlined the con- We contend that people use two distinct criteria for evaluating ditions that should enable leaders to deviate from prevailing group leaders: The accrual criterion is based on the leader’s demonstrable norms. The idiosyncrasy credit model conceptualized leadership in adherence to the group prototype, and the conferral criterion is terms of relations with followers and proposed that leaders gain based on the inference that mere occupancy of the leadership role trust from their followers on the basis of their performance over accords greater latitude to determine the prescriptive norm of the time and from positive contributions to the group. Once sufficient group. We also contend that the phase of leadership (ex, current, future) will affect the weight members attach to the accrual and conferral criteria. We examine how phase of leadership affects the Dominic Abrams and Georgina Randsley de Moura, Centre for the way antinorm leaders are perceived, evaluated, given license to Study of Group Processes, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, innovate, and rewarded. Canterbury, England; Jose´ M. Marques, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Cieˆncias da Educaçaõ, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; Paul Hutchi- Social Identity, SGD, and Deviance son, Department of Psychology, London Metropolitan University, London, England. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and This research was supported in part by Grants R42200034207 and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & R42200024342 from the Economic and Social Research Council. We are Wetherell, 1987), people’s positive identity as a group member grateful to Barbara Masser for suggesting the term innovation credit after depends on intergroup comparisons. A metacontrast between these reading an earlier version of this article and to Jack Dovidio, John Levine, Norbert Kerr, Katerina Tasiopoulou, and Tim Hopthrow for comments. intergroup and intragroup differences defines the positions (e.g., Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dominic attitudes or actions) that are perceived to be relatively prototypical Abrams or Georgina Randsley de Moura, Centre for the Study of Group for the ingroup and the outgroup. These prototypes ultimately Processes, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 provide a basis for depersonalized attraction among group mem- 7NP, England. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] bers (Hogg, 2001a; Turner et al., 1987). 662 DEVIANCE AND LEADERSHIP 663 Although self-categorization theory argues that group differ- less favorably than other ingroup members and than an outgroup ences are organized in terms of differing prototypes, it is often the antinorm deviant who expressed the same attitudes. These results case that group members who denotatively are unquestionably were consistent with the idea that participants are especially sen- members of a particular group (e.g., male) deviate from the pre- sitive to antinorm deviance, and their responses reinforce the scriptive norms of that group (e.g., to be masculine; Abrams, ingroup’s prescriptive norm. Marques, Bown, & Henson, 2000; Abrams, Marques, Randsley de Abrams et al.’s (2000) paradigm is useful because it depicts Moura, Hutchison, & Bown, 2004; Marques, Paéz, & Abrams, group members in a quasinormal distribution, wherein the pres- 1998). Thus, although prototypical positions are often prescrip- ence of the pronorm and antinorm deviants seems plausible. Given tively normative, it is not always the case that prescriptively that participants are likely to make distinctive responses to an- normative positions have to be prototypical, as illustrated by tinorm members, the paradigm allows us to evaluate the impact of phenomena such as pluralistic ignorance and social projection other factors on those judgments. The present series of studies vary (e.g., Prentice & Miller, 1993). the leadership status of the antinorm targets within this paradigm. The SGD model (e.g., Abrams, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Viki, 2005; Marques, Paéz, & Abrams, 1998; Marques & Paéz, Leadership 1994) proposes that group members use intragroup differentiation for a further purpose—not just to judge the group prototypes but The social identity perspective on leadership (e.g., Haslam, also to reinforce prescriptive ingroup norms. Research shows that 2001; Hogg, 2001c; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Turner & subjective dynamics, or norm-reinforcement processes, begin to Haslam, 2001) proposes that a central aspect of leadership is the operate from quite an early age and may form part of the unwritten extent to which the leader can embody the group prototype. Group conventions of group membership (Abrams & Rutland, 2008; leaders are likely to be individuals who best represent the group’s Abrams, Rutland, & Cameron, 2003). Evidence across a wide identity and who best reflect the group’s consensual or prototyp- range of group memberships shows that members expect one ical position (Haslam, 2001; Reicher, Haslam, & Hopkins, 2005; another, and are motivated, to validate ingroup norms (Abrams, Turner, 1991; van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg, 2005). Pre- Marques, Randsley de Moura, Hutchison, & Bown, 2004; Abrams vious research investigating leadership from a social identity per- et al., 2005; Abrams, Rutland, Cameron, & Ferrell, 2007; Abrams, spective shows that more prototypical leaders are generally eval- Rutland, Ferrell, & Pelletier, in press). Reinforcement of these uated more positively (e.g., Hains, Hogg, & Duck, 1997; Haslam norms is often achieved by derogating ingroup members who & Platow, 2001; Haslam et al., 2001; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, deviate from their own group’s norms. People may also upgrade 1998; Hogg & van Knippenberg, 2003; Platow & van Knippen- antinorm outgroup members if the latter deviate toward ingroup berg, 2001). However, previous studies have not attended closely norms, resulting in a “black sheep” effect (Marques, Abrams, to the question of whether this advantage results from prototypi- Paéz, & Taboada, 1998; Marques, Paéz, & Abrams, 1998; cality per se or from occupancy of the leader role in combination Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988). with prototypicality. Specifically, there has not been a systematic Abrams et al. (2000, Study 2) informed participants about the comparison of leaders versus nonleaders who share the same levels different norms of their ingroup (psychologists) and

Load more