Tiempo
https://ebookmass.com/product/tiempo-extrano-2018th-edition-joe-hill/
ebookmass.com
Fulllengtharticle
TheLeadershipQuarterlyxxx(2022)101596
Contentslistsavailableat ScienceDirect
TheLeadershipQuarterly
journalhomepage:www.else vier.com/loc ate/leaqua
Leader’smorality,prototypicality,andfollowers’ reactions ☆
ValeriaAmataGiannella a,⇑,StefanoPagliaro a,⇑,ManuelaBarreto b,c
a UniversitàdegliStudidiChieti-Pescara,Italy
b UniversityofExeter,UK
c LisbonUniversityInstitute(CIS/ISCTE-IUL),Portugal
ARTICLEINFO
Keywords: Leadership
Morality
Competence
Prototypicality
SocialIdentity
ABSTRACT
Weexaminetheeffectsofmoral(vs.competent)leadershiponfollowers'leaderevaluationsandendorsement. InStudy1(N=157),followersevaluatedaleadermorenegativelyandendorsedthemlesswhentheyfailed onmoralitythancompetence.Anindirecteffectfromleadermoralitytoleaderevaluation,throughperceived groupprototypicalityemerged,demonstratingtheidentity‐basisofthisevaluation.InStudies2(N=150),3 (N=297),and4(N=192)participantsconsideredincongruoussituationsinwhichtheleaderfailedon moralitybutsucceedoncompetence,orvice‐versa.Followersexpressedmorenegativeevaluationsandless endorsementofanimmoralbutcompetentleaderthanofamoralbutincompetentleader,throughgroupprototypicality.InStudy4,wemanipulatedgroupprototypicality.Aleaderconsideredprototypicalofthegroup receivedworseevaluationswhentheybehavedimmorally,irrespectiveoftheircompetence.Resultscontribute totheunderstandingofleader‐followersdynamics.
Leader‐followersdynamicsarecrucialforgroupsandorganizations,aspositiverelationsbetweenleadersandfollowersfacilitate groupcohesionandeffectiveness,whilenegativeonesfosterdisengagement,deviance,andsocialloafing.Forthisreason,researchers havefocusedtheirinterestonunderstandingwhenandwhypeople choosetofollowandsupporttheirleader.Approachestoleadership oftenfocusontheindividualattributesthatleadersneedtohaveto besuccessful.OneexampleofthesetheoriesisImplicitLeadership Theory,whichoriginallyconceptualizedtheexistenceofnaïvetheoriesofhowsuccessfulleaderswereexpectedanddesiredtobe (Lord,Foti,&deVader,1984;seealso Judge,Bono,Ilies,& Gerhardt,2002;Offermann&Coats,2018).Forexample,research hasshownthatgroupmemberstendtopreferleaderswhoaresensitive,dedicated,intelligent,attractive,masculine,andstrong (Offermann,Kennedy,&Wirtz,1994).Incontrasttothisperspective, thesocialidentityapproachtoleadershipproposesthatleadership effectivenessisnotdependentonleadershavingspecificpre‐defined individualattributes,butthat,instead,leaderscanonlybesuccessful iftheyrepresentthegroup’sidentity,thatis,iftheyareperceivedto beprototypicalgroupmembers.Indeed,leaderswhoareperceived
tobeprototypicalofthegroupareperceivedfavourablybyfollowers, inparticularbythosewhoarehighlyidentifiedwiththeirgroup (Fielding&Hogg,1997),areperceivedasmorecharismaticthanother leaders(Hains,Hogg,&Duck,1997;Platow,vanKnippenberg, Haslam,vanKnippenberg,&Spears,2006),receivegreatersupport fromgroupmembers,andarebetterabletoinfluencethem(Gleibs &Haslam,2016;Giessner&VanKnippenberg,2008;van Knippenberg,2011;Platow&VanKnippenberg,2001).Ofcourse, fromthisperspective,prototypicalleaderscanbeseenassensitive, dedicated,intelligent,attractive,masculine,orstrong,buttheseattributesareneithernecessarynorsufficient theirrelevancedependson whatisperceivedtobetypicalofthegroup.
Inthepresentpaper,weaimedtoaddtothesocialidentity approachtheconsiderationthatleadermoralityisafundamentalleadershipattributethatpredictswhetherornotaleaderisperceivedtobe prototypicalofthegroup.Thatis,weclaimthatleadermoralityisan attributethatiscentraltoperceivedgroupprototypicality.Specifically,weaimtoextendthesocialidentityapproachwithkeyinsights fromliteratureontheroleofmoralityinsocialjudgement which underlinesthecentralityofmoralityinindividualimpressionsand
☆ Allauthorscontributedequallytothedevelopmentoftheresearchandtothepresentpaper.ValeriaAmataGiannellacollectedandanalyzeddata.Thisresearchdidnotreceiveany specificgrantfromfundingagenciesinthepublic,commercial,ornot-for-profitsectors.ManuelaBarretowouldliketoacknowledgethecontributionofGarryKerridgeandAlex Haslamtopilotworkwhichcontributedtothedevelopmentoftheideasreportedinthepaper.Theauthorsalsowouldliketothankthe ‘SocialStigmaandSocialRelationshipslab’ at theuniversityofExeter,AndrewLivingstone,andJoeSweetman,forfeedbackonapriorversionofthispaper.
⇑ Correspondingauthorsat:UniversitàdegliStudidiChieti,DipartimentodiNeuroscienze,ImagingeScienzeCliniche,ViadeiVestini,13,66100Chieti,Italy. E-mailaddresses: valeria.giannella@unich.it (V.A.Giannella), s.pagliaro@unich.it (S.Pagliaro).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101596
Received25November2019;Revised26November2021;Accepted30November2021 Availableonlinexxxx 1048-9843/©2022ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Pleasecitethisarticleinpressas:Giannella,VAetal.Leader’smorality,prototypicality,andfollowers’ reactions.TheLeadershipQuarterly(2022), https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101596
groupprocesses(Brambilla&Leach,2014;Ellemers&vandenBos, 2012);ethicalleadership whichpointstotheimportanceofmorality inleadership(e.g., Brown,Treviño,&Harrison,2005;Keck,Giessner, VanQuaquebeke,&Kruijff,2020);andtheroleofmoralityingroup processes(Leach,Ellemers,&Barreto,2007).Inthisway,wehope tointegrateapproachestoleadershipthatseeitasapropertyofindividualswhopossessspecificattributes(likecompetenceormasculinity)withthesocialidentityapproach,whichseesleadershipasa groupprocess.
Individualdifferencesinleadershipattributes
Historically,thescientificapproachtothestudyofleadership beganwiththeoriesofleadershipthatfocusedontheindividualattributesthatmakeagoodleader(e.g.,GreatMantheory, Carlyle,1973). Groundedinthenotionthatthehistoryoftheworldwasshapedby greatpersonalities,orbetterbygreatmen,thisseminalapproach focusedattentiononthedescriptionofalistofindividualattributes thatcharacteriseeffectiveanddesirableleaders,irrespectiveofwhat grouptheylead(Kelloway,Gilbert,Fraccaroli,&Sverke,2017).Even thoughscholarsandpractitionershaveconsistentlyproposedthatindividualattributes perse werenotenoughtoexplainleadershipeffectivenessandfollowership,thereisevidenceshowingthatfollowers expecttheirleaderstohavespecificattributes,suchasintelligence, charisma,strength,andsensitivity(e.g., Offermannetal.,1994; Judge,Colbert,&Ilies,2004).Thetask,inthisareaofknowledge,is todeterminewhattheseattributesmightbeandhowthesecanbenurtured.Theseindividual‐basedapproachesdominatedthe firstdecades ofscientificleadershipresearch(Zaccaro,2007).
Anumberofscholarshaveprovidedasubstantialempiricalbasis forstudyingtheattributesthatpredictleadershipeffectiveness(e.g., Judgeetal.,2002;Peterson,Smith,Martorana,&Owens,2003;see Zaccaro,Kemp,&Bader,2004,forareview).Zaccaroandcolleagues (2004),forexample,refertodispositionsandabilitiessostableintime andspaceastobeimmunetoanysituationalcontingency.Zaccaroand colleagues(2004)suggestthateffectiveleadershiprequirestheintegrationofrelativelystableandcoherentpersonalcharacteristics(such asmotivations,temperament,cognitiveabilities,andskills)ableto promoteaconsistentmodelofleadershipperformanceinavariety oforganizationalandgroupsituations.Asimilarapproach – Implicit LeadershipTheory(ILT) – suggeststhataleaderisperceivedassuch throughaprocessofrecognizingandmatchinganindividual’sattributesandbehaviourstothecorrespondingprototypeofthe “leader” category,aprototypethattendstobethesameacrossgroupsandsituations.Inotherwords,ILTproposedthatindividualsholdimplicit andnaïveconceptualizationsofhowleadersshouldbelike,thatis “cognitivestructuresorschemasthatspecifywhatpeopleexpectfrom leadersintermsofleadertraitsorattributes” (Offermann&Coats, 2018,p.513).Suchimplicittheorieshavebeenfoundtochangeacross time thatis,historyinfluenceswhatisseenastheprototypeofthe leader butareexpectedtobestablewithintimesandacrosscontexts (Kalish&Luria,2020;Offermann&Coats,2018).
Thesocialidentityapproachtoleadership
Incontrasttotheapproachestoleadershipthatseeitasaproperty ofindividualswhopossessspecificattributesorindividualdifferences, thesocialidentityapproachtoleadershipproposesthatleadershipisa groupprocessthatemergesfromsharedcollectiveidentities(Ellemers, DeGilder,&Haslam,2004;Haslam&Platow,2001;Haslam,Reicher, &Platow,2011;Hogg&vanKnippenberg,2003;Hogg,2001;Turner &Haslam,2001).Thismeansthatattributeslikecharismaandsensitivityonlydescribeagoodleaderiftheyalsodescribethegroupthey wishtolead.Inaddition,thisperspectiveproposesthatleadership
effectivenessreliesontheleader’scapacitytomobilizeidentitiesand strengthengroupbonds(Haslametal.,2011).
Anindividual’ssocialidentityreferstotheirsenseofbelongingtoa socialgroupandtheimportancethishasforthem(Tajfel&Turner, 1979;Turner,Hogg,Oakes,Reicher,&Wetherell,1987).Describing themselvesintermsofspecificgroupmembershipsallowspeopleto communicatetoothershowtheywishtobeperceivedandwhatcan beexpectedfromtheminparticularsituations.Therefore,thedefinitionofthegroupdetermineswhoisabletorepresentit,andtheidentityofthegroupcaninturnbeinfluencedbywhorepresentsit (Haslametal.,2011).
Fromthisperspective,leadershipeffectivenessdependsontheleader’sabilitytorepresentandpromotethegroup'ssocialidentityata particularpointintime(forareviewsee vanKnippenberg,2011). Theleader’spowerderivesfromexpressinggroupidentityandpromotingstandardsandvalueslinkedtothissharedidentity thatis, leadershavethepowertoensurefollowershipwhentheyareseento representthegroup,thatis,whentheyareseenas prototypical ofthe group.Indeed,researchhasshownthataprototypicalleaderreceives moretrustthanaleaderthatisnotseenasprototypicalofthegroup becausetheyareperceivedashavingthegroup’sinterestsatheart (vanKnippenberg&Hogg,2003;vanKnippenberg&van Knippenberg,2005).
Tosummarize,thesocialidentityapproachtothestudyofleadershippositsthatforaleadertobeeffectiveitisfundamentalthatthey representthegrouptheylead,itscorevalues,anditspositivedistinctiveness.Followershipensuesfromthisperceivedgroupprototypicality(Haslametal.,2011).Examininghowaleadercomestobeseenas prototypicalofthegroupisimportanttoimproveunderstandingof leader‐followersdynamics.Inthepresentpaper,weaimedtocomplementexistingevidenceontheroleofprototypicalitybyconnecting thislineofresearchwithevidenceabouttheprominenceofmorality insocialjudgmentsandgroupdynamics.Justlikemoralityhasbeen showntobeprimaryingrouppride,evaluation,andintheregulation ofgroupmembers’ behaviour(e.g., Ellemers,2017;Leachetal.,2007), weadvancethatitislikelytobecentraltoperceivedleaderprototypicality.Specifically,weproposethatamoralleaderislikelytobeperceivedasrepresentingthecorevaluesofthegroup(thatis,theywillbe perceivedasprototypical) andmoresothananotherleaderwhohas otherpositiveattributes.
Morality,socialjudgment,andintragroupprocesses
Althoughconsideringleadershipasapropertyofindividualswho possessspecificattributesandseeingitasanemerginggroupproperty (asthesocialidentityapproachdoes)haveoftenbeenconsidered incompatible,weproposethattheycometogetherwhenitcomesto leadermorality.Thisisbecausemoralityiscentraltogroupidentity andthereforeitisanindividualattributethatiscentraltotheperceptionofwhetherornotaleaderisperceivedasprototypicalofthe group.Itfollows,then,thatleadermoralityislikelytobeaparticularly strongdeterminantofleadershipendorsementandthatthisislikelyto happenthroughthesocialidentityrouteofperceivedleader prototypicality.
Researchonsocialperceptionidentifiedtwocoreevaluative domainsalongwhichpeopleformjudgmentsaboutthemselves,about others,andaboutsocialgroups:Competenceandwarmth(forareview see Cuddy,Fiske,&Glick,2008).Whereasthe firstdomainrefersto theabilitytoperformataskinacompetent,efficient,andintelligent manner,thesecondreferstofundamentalcharacteristicsforthefunctioningofsocialrelationships,suchassociability,reliability,andhonesty.Leachandcolleagues(2007)furtherhighlightedthatwithinthe warmthdomaintwosub‐domainscanbedistinguished:Morality(tappingintocharacteristicssuchashonestyandtrustworthiness)and sociability(tappingintocharacteristicssuchaslikeabilityorfriendli-
ness).Acrossarangeofstudies,researchersconsistentlyshowedthat morality(vs.competenceandvs.sociability)playsaprominentand leadingroleinformingimpressionsaboutunknowntargets,inevaluationsofoneselfandone’singroups(Leach,Bilali,&Pagliaro,2014), andinregulatinggroupprocesses(Ellemers,Pagliaro,&Barreto, 2013).
Thatis,evidenceshowsthatgroupmembers’ evaluationsoftheir groups,andtheirchoiceofwhichgroupstheywanttobelongto,are drivenprimarilybythegroup’sperceivedmorality(Leachetal., 2007).Individuals finditimportanttoperceivethemselvesasmoral (Pagliaro,Ellemers,Barreto,&DiCesare,2016)and,toachievethis, they finditimportanttobelongtogroupsconsideredmoral(Leach etal.,2007).Becauseofthis,moralityhasalsobeenfoundtoplaya keyroleinregulatingbehaviouramongstgroupmembers,sothat normsthatarepresentedasreflectingmoralvaluesaremorelikely tobeendorsed(Ellemers,2017).Thisworkwasimportantinpart becauseitclarifiedthat,althoughgroupmembersareoftenwilling toconcedeonwhethertheirgroupisperceivedascompetentoras sociable,theyarenotaswillingtoconcedeongroupmorality.This mightbe,inpart,because(im)moralityisquicklyinferredfrom(im)moralbehaviour(e.g., Fiske,1980)andisperceivedtobestableover time(e.g., Reeder&Coovert,1986;Skowronski&Carlston,1987). Therefore,moraltransgressionstendtobeseenasenduringattributes intheeyesofperceivers,fromwhichitishardtocomeback.
Ifmoralityissocentraltogroupidentity,andifgroupprototypicalityiskeytoleadereffectiveness,thenitseemsplausibletoinferthat, tobesupportedandfollowed,aleadermustbeperceivedasmoraltoo. Inlinewithourreasoning,priorevidenceseemstosuggestthataleader’sbehaviouralintegrity thatis,theextenttowhichaleaderdeliversonpromisesandenactsthevaluestheyespouse induces followers’ commitmentandperformance(Leroy,Palanski,&Simons, 2012;Palanski&Yammarino,2011).Inaddition,asupervisors’ perceivedmoralityisastrongdeterminantofwhetherornottheyfunctionaseffectiverolemodels(Peters,Steffens,&Morgenroth,2018).
Furtherindirectsupportforourreasoningstemsfromresearch showingthatorganizationsperceivedasmoral(towhichleader’s moralitypresumablycontributes)facilitateorganizationalcitizenship, thatis,behaviorsthatgobeyondthecallofdutyandareusefulforthe growthandsuccessofanorganization(Dineen,Lewicki,&Tomlinson, 2006;Ellemers,Kingma,VandenBurgt,&Barreto,2011).Researchon ethicalleadershipalsolendssupporttotheseideas.Forexample, Brownandcolleagues(2005)developedainstrumenttomeasureethicalleadership(designatedas normativelyappropriateconduct) that demonstratedapositivecorrelationbetweentrustinleadership,satisfactionwiththeleader,perceivedleadereffectiveness,jobdedication, andfollowers’ willingnesstoreportproblemstomanagement.Elaboratingonthisconcept,(Kecketal.,2020)recentlyreliedonrelational modelstheory(RMT; Fiske,1991)toshowthatfollowers’ ethicalleadershipperceptionsarenotabsolute,rathertheydependuponthe fit betweentherelationalmodelthattheydeemappropriateandtherelationalmodeltheyascribetointeractionswiththeirleader.Finally, (Gerpottetal.,2019)recentlyreportedthatperceivedethicalleadershipispositivelyrelatedtoorganizationalcitizenshipbehaviorviafollowers’ moralidentity,butonlywhentheleaderisperceivedashighly prototypicalofthegroup.
Thereisthusevidencesuggestingthattheleader’smoralityiscentralinleader‐followersdynamics,andthatthishappensthroughgroup identityprocesses.Nevertheless,experimentalorcausalevidencefor thisprocess,andamoredirectlinkbetweenmoralityperceptions andgroupidentity,remainelusive,atleasttoourknowledge.Inthe presentpaper,weaimedto fillthisgap,bydirectlyinvestigating whetherornotthemoraldomainisamoreimportantdeterminant ofperceptionsofagroupleaderandoftheirendorsement,compared
toanotherevaluativedomainthatisalsopositiveandcanalsobe deemedimportantforleadershipeffectiveness,thatis,competence. Inparticular,bringingtogetherthesocialidentityapproachtoleadershipwithevidenceaboutthesocialregulatoryfunctionsofmorality, weaimedtoshowthatmoralitydrivesleadershipevaluationand endorsement.Moreover,weaimedtoshowthattheeffectofmorality onleader–followerdynamicsisdrivenbytheperceptionthatamoral leaderisprototypicaloftheingroupandfundamentalfortheingroup’s reputation.Bycontrast,weproposedthatanimmoral(vs.anincompetentoramoral)leaderisperceivedasparticularlylowingroupprototypicalityandismorethreateningforthegroup’sreputation,whichis likelytoreducefollowers’ willingnesstoendorsetheleader.
Overviewofthepresentresearch
Inthepresentresearch,weaimedtoextendthesocialidentity approachtoleadershipbydrawingonexistingknowledgeaboutthe importanceofmoralitybothforsocialjudgmentsandforgroupidentity.Todoso,wecomparedtheextenttowhichgroupmembers endorsedtheirleaderasafunctionofpositiveversusnegativeinformationabouttheirmoralityortheircompetence.Wealsoexaminedhow thesefactorsinfluencetheextenttowhichtheleaderisperceivedas prototypicaloftheingroup,andwhethertheleader’sperceivedprototypicalitydriveseffectsonendorsement.
Weconductedfourstudiestodirectlycomparethecausaleffectsof aleader's(im)moralityand(in)competenceonperceptionsoftheleader’sprototypicalityandleadershipendorsement.InStudy1we exploredtheeffectofthesetwoevaluativedomainsseparately,while Studies2,3and4putthesetwodomainsagainsteachother.Studies1, 2and3consideredperceivedleader’sprototypicalityasamediator;in Study4wefurthermanipulated(highvslow)leader’sprototypicality, toexamineitscausaleffectonendorsement.
Study1
InStudy1,weexperimentallycomparedfollowers’ reactionstoa failure(vs.asuccess)oftheleaderinthemoral(vs.competence)evaluativedomain.Basedonourrationale,wehypothesizedthatleaders whofailinthemoraldomain,comparedtoleaderswhofailinthecompetencedomain,areevaluatedmorenegatively(Hp1),areperceived aslessprototypicalofthegroup(Hp2),andelicitlowerleadership endorsement(Hp3).Moreover,weanticipatedthattherelationship betweentheleader’s(positivevs.negative)moralityandleadership endorsementismediatedbyperceivedingroupprototypicality (Hp4).Suchamediationisexpectedtobeweakerornon‐significant withregardtotheleader’s(positivevs.negative)competence.
Toacknowledgethefactthatleaderscanbemaleorfemaleand thatbothleadershipandmoralityhavebeenfoundtobegendered, wealsovariedleadergenderinthisstudy.Itispossiblethatmenare moreeasilyendorsedasleadersthanwomenare,giventhattheyare abetter fittothegeneralprototypeofaleader(e.g., Eagly&Karau, 2002;Carli&Eagly,2007,Eagly,Makhijani,&Klonsky,1992).However,thisideafailstodifferentiatebetweentheprototypeof aleader andtheprototypeof theingroup.Fromourperspective,wethinkthere isnoreasontosuspectthatwomenarelesslikelytobeseenasprototypicaloftheingroup,whichiswhatthesocialidentityapproachproposesisimportanttoleadershipendorsement.Ontheotherhand, womenmightbejudgeddifferentlyfrommenparticularlywhen behavingimmorally.Researchhasshownthatwomenwithmoralfailingsarejudgedmoreharshlythanmen(Montgomery&Cowen,2019), perhapsbecausetheyareoftenexpectedtobeparticularlymorally (Glick&Fiske,1996).Itisthereforeimportanttoexplorewhetheror notgenderaffectstheprocessesweexaminehere.
Method
Designandparticipants. Participantswererandomlyassignedto oneoftheeightconditionsresultingfroma2(Outcome:Failurevs.Success)×2(EvaluativeDomains:Moralityvs.Competence)×2(Leader’s Gender:Malevs.Female)betweenparticipantsdesign.Onehundred and fifty‐sevenundergraduateswererecruitedinaPsychologyclass (133females,21males,3unknown; Mage =20.81; SD =1.85) andvoluntarilyparticipatedinthestudy.Wecollectedresponsesfrom allthestudentspresentedintheclassroom.AllparticipantswereresidentinItaly.
Procedure. Weinformedparticipantsthattheywouldtakepartina studyontheopinionsofyoungpeopleaboutseveralaspectsofsocial life.Afterprovidingtheirinitialwrittenconsenttotakepartinthe research,participantscompletedameasureofidentificationwiththe ingroup(studentsfromtheUniversityinwhichtheresearchwasperformed).Thisconsistedofafour‐itemscaleadaptedfrom Ellemers, Pagliaro,Barreto,andLeach(2008;e.g., “Beingastudentofthe UniversityXisimportanttome”; “IhavethefeelingthatIbelongto thegroupofstudentsfromtheUniversityX”;1= completelydisagree 7= completelyagree;Cronbach’s α =0.68).Wecontrolledforidentificationwiththeingroupinallsubsequentanalyses.
Participantsthenreada fictitiousarticledescribingthealleged activitiesofastudentleaderintheUniversityCouncil,auniversity bodywithstudentrepresentation.Participantswereledtobelievethat thisarticlewaspublishedbyalocalnewspaper.Inthesescenarios,the studentleaderdescribedhadthetaskofmanagingthemoneyraised forastudentactivity.Accordingtocondition,thestudents’ leader waseithermale(Marco)orfemale(Francesca),andeithersucceed orfailedintheiractivity.Inthe moralitycondition,theleader’sbehaviourwaseitherdescribedasdishonestandinsincereinthemanagementofthepublicmoney,withtheleaderhavingusedpartofthat moneyfortheirpersonalpurpose(failurecondition);orashonestand sincereinthemanagementofthispublicmoney,withtheleadernever havingusedpartofthepublicmoneyfortheirpersonalpurpose(successcondition).Inthe competencecondition,theleader’sbehaviourwas eitherdescribedasincompetentinthemanagementofthepublic money,havingmadeaseriesofaccountancymistakes(failurecondition),orasacompetentinthemanagementofthispublicmoney,never havingmadeanyaccountancymistakes(successcondition).
Anattentioncheckwasconductedbyaskingparticipantstoremembertheleaders'behaviorinamultiplechoiceformatbyaskingthemif theleaderhadmadeamiscalculationorusedthemoneyforpersonal use(alternatives:yes,no,Idon'tremember).Nineparticipantsfailed thesemanipulationchecks,andtheirresponseswerediscardedfrom thedataset(retainedsample=148).Wealsorananalyseswiththe wholesampleandtheresultsobtainedwerealmostidenticaltowhat isreportedhere.
Afterreadingthearticle,participantsevaluatedtheleader(“Onthe basisofwhatyouhaveread,towhatextentdoyouconsiderMarco/Francescaas ”)onthefundamentaldomainsofjudgment: Morality (trustworthy,honest,sincere;Cronbach’s α =0.96)and competence (competent,skilled,bright; Cronbach’s α =0.91)1.Participantsadditionallyprovided aglobalevaluation oftheleaderonascalerangingfrom 1(completelynegative)to7(completelypositive).
Subsequently,weassessedtheextenttowhichparticipantsperceivedtheleaderas prototypicaloftheiringroup (studentsfromthe UniversityX)withfouritems(e.g., “Francesca/Marcoisprototypical
1 AccordingtoLeachandcolleagues(2007),peoplerelyonthreeevaluativedomains whentheyformjudgmentsaboutotherandthemselves:morality,competence,and sociability.Moralityandsociabilityareintendedastwosub‐domainsofthegeneral Warmthfactor.Eventhoughinthissetofstudieswewereinterestedinthecomparison betweenmoralityandcompetence,forthesakeofcompletenesswealsoassessedleader’s sociabilityinallthestudies.Wedidnotreportcompleteresultsaboutsociabilityinthe paper.
ofthestudentsfromtheUniversityX”; “Francesca/Marcoisagood exampleofstudentsfromtheUniversityX”;1= notatall 7= alot; Cronbach’s α =0.84)2.
Finally,participantsindicatedtheir endorsement oftheleaderon fouritems:Theextenttowhichtheywould “Supportthefuturecandidacyofleader” , “Voteforleader” , “Suggesttoothercolleaguesthat theyvoteforleader”,and “Contributetoleader’selectoralcampaign” (1= notatall 7= alot;Cronbach’s α =0.96).
Results. Weperformeda2(Outcome:Failurevs.Success)×2(EvaluativeDomains:Moralityvs.Competence)×2(Leader’sGender:Male vs.Female)MultivariateAnalysisofVariance(MANOVA)3 including allthedependentvariablesdescribedabove.Mediationanalysesinall thestudieswereperformedwithPROCESS(Hayes,2013). Tables1 reportthedescriptivestatisticsandtheinter‐correlationsforallvariablesinStudy1.
Atthemultivariatelevel,theanalysisshowedamaineffectofevaluativedomains F(5,135)=21.15, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.44,anda maineffectofoutcome F(5,135)=169.11, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.86;asignificantinteractionbetweenevaluativedomainsand outcomefurtheremerged F(5,135)=24.77, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.48.Neitherthemaineffectofleader’sgender F (5,135)=0.62, p =.69,northeotherinteractionsweresignificant, Fs <1.09, ps >0.37 Belowwedescribetheunivariateeffects.
Leadermoralityandcompetence. Attheunivariatelevel,withregards toleader’smoralityboththemaineffectofoutcome, F (1,139)=826.41, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.86,andthemaineffect ofevaluativedomains, F(1,139)=69.22, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.33,weresignificant.Themaineffectswerequalifiedbyasignificantinteraction, F(1,139)=70.01, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.34.As intended,participantsevaluatedtheleaderaslessmoralwhenthey failedonamoralbasis(M =1.47, SD =0.76)ratherthanonacompetencebasis(M =3.58, SD =0.75).Theleaderwas,instead,evaluatedassimilarlymoralinthecaseofasuccessthatwasmorality‐based (M =6.18, SD =0.80)orcompetence‐based(M =6.18, SD =0.74). Thus,inlinewithourintention,thoughmoralitywasgenerally affectedbyoutcome,theeffectofoutcomeonperceivedleadermoralitywaslargerinthemoralitythaninthecompetencedomain.
Withregardstotheleader’scompetence,theanalysisshowedthat themaineffectofoutcomewassignificant, F(1,139)=181.28, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.57;themaineffectofevaluativedomains onwasnotsignificant, F(1,139)=0.15, p =.70.Amarginal outcomeXevaluativedomainsinteractionemerged, F (1,139)=3.69, p =.06,partial η 2 =0.03.Inbothconditions,theleaderwasevaluatedaslesscompetentincaseoffailure(Competence: M =3.13, SD =1.16;Morality: M =3.42, SD =1.57)thanincase ofsuccess(Competence: M =6.10, SD =0.71;Morality: M =5.65, SD =0.92).Thesignificantinteractionreflectsthefactthatthisdifferencewaslargerinthecompetencethaninthemoralitycondition,as intended.
Globalimpressionoftheleader. Boththemaineffectofoutcome, F (1,139)=239.91, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.63,andofevaluative domains, F(1,139)=27.10, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.16,weresignificant.Theeffectofevaluativedomainswasqualifiedbyareliable interaction, F(1,139)=22.32, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.14(while theeffectofoutcomewasnot).Asintended,participantsevaluated theleadermorenegativelywhentheyfailedonamoral(M =2.49, SD =1.17)ratherthanonacompetencebasis(M =4.06, SD =0.93).Theleaderwas,instead,evaluatedsimilarlypositively
2 Inallthestudiespresentedinthispaper,wefurtherassessedwhethertheleader’s behaviorrepresentsareputationalthreattothegroupasafeasibleparallelmediator. Nevertheless,inallthestudiesthisalmostfullyoverlappedwiththeperceptionofleader’s prototypicality.Forthisreason,wedecidedtofocusontheleader’sprototypicality,andwe didnotreportresultsaboutreputationalthreattothegroup.
3 Wealsoconductedtheanalyseswithgroupidentificationasacovariate,butthe resultsdonotchangecomparedtowhatiscurrentlyreportedinthepaper.
Table1
Study1:Means,standarddeviations,correlations,andCronbach'salphavalues. MSD1.2.3.4.5.
Evaluations1.Outcome2.Evaluativedomains 1.MoralityFailureMoral1.470.76(0.96) Competence3.580.75
SuccessMoral6.180.80 Competence6.180.74
2.CompetenceFailureMoral3.421.570.73***(0.91) Competence3.131.16
SuccessMoral5.650.92 Competence6.100.71
3.GlobalImpressionFailureMoral2.491.17 0.89***0.78***1 Competence4.060.93
SuccessMoral5.680.87 Competence5.760.78
4.PrototypicalityFailureMoral2.210.950.66***0.51***0.70***(0.84) Competence3.790.91
SuccessMoral4.221.08 Competence4.510.91
5.EndorsementFailureMoral1.300.570.90***0.74***0.82***0.57***(0.96) Competence2.311.01
SuccessMoral5.181.15 Competence5.071.01
Note.Internalreliabilitycoefficients(Cronbach'salphavalues)arelistedalongthediagonal.*p<.05,**p<.01***p<.001.
inthecaseofasuccessthatwasmorality‐based(M =5.68, SD =0.87)orcompetence‐based(M =5.76, SD =0.78).
Leaderprototypicality.Asregardstheperceptionoftheleaderasa prototypicalstudentoftheUniversitytheanalysisshowedthatboth themaineffectofoutcome, F (1,139)=74.00, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.35,andthemaineffectofevaluativedomains, F (1,139)=34.80, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.20,weresignificant.The effectofevaluativedomainswasqualifiedbyasignificant outcomeXevaluativedomainsinteraction, F (1,139)=16.27, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.11.Asintended,participantsevaluatedthe leaderaslessprototypicaloftheiringroupwhentheyfailedonamoral (M =2.21, SD =0.95)ratherthanonacompetencebasis(M =3.79, SD =0.91).Theleaderwasinsteadevaluatedassimilarlyprototypical inthecaseofasuccessthatwasmorality‐based(M =4.22, SD =1.08)orcompetence‐based(M =4.51, SD =0.91).
Leaderendorsement.Boththemaineffectofoutcome, F (1,139)=436.19, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.76,andofevaluative domains, F(1,139)=8.05, p =.005,partial η 2 =0.06,weresignificant.Theeffectofevaluativedomainswasqualifiedbyareliableinteraction, F(1,139)=12.43, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.08.Participants reportedalowerwillingnesstoendorsetheleaderwhentheyfailed onamoralbasis(M =1.30, SD =0.57)ratherthanacompetence basis(M =2.31, SD =1.01).Leaderendorsementwassimilarin thecaseofasuccessthatwasmorality‐based(M =5.18, SD =1.15)orcompetence‐based(M =5.07, SD =1.01).
Moderatedmediation. Inlightofthehypothesis,weconducteda moderatemediationanalysiswhichhoweverproducedunreliable results.TheanalysiswasconductedtoverifywhethertheeffectofOutcome(codedas0= failure;1= success)onleaderendorsementwas mediatedbyperceivedleaderprototypicalityandmoderatedbythe evaluativedomainalongwhichtheleadereitherfailedorsucceed (moderatorcodedas0= competence;1= morality).Wefollowed theproceduredescribedby Hayes(2013) forestimatingindirect effects(model8;5,000resampling).
Theoverallequationwassignificant, R2 =0.78, F(4, 142)=122.29, p <.001.Bothoutcome(B =2.62, p <.001)and prototypicality(B =0.18, p =.03)significantlypredictedwillingness toendorsetheleader.Moreover,theconditionalindirecteffectofOutcomeonleaderendorsementthroughperceivedleaderprototypicality wassignificantatbothlevelsofthemoderator(competence: B =0.13; 95%CI:LL=0.0031;UL=0.3084;morality: B =0.36;95%CI:
LL=0.0135;UL=0.7709).Crucially,theindexofmoderatedmediationwasreliable, B =0.23;95%CI:LL=0.0067;UL=0.5516.This meansthat,ashypothesized,theindirecteffectoftheleader’soutcome onleaderendorsementthroughperceivedleaderprototypicalitywas strongerinthemoralitythaninthecompetencedomain.
However,becauseourmeditatorismeasuredratherthanmanipulateditislikelythatitisendogenoustoleaderendorsement.Inorder toestimatethecausaleffectofleaderprototypicalityonleader endorsement,weusedaninstrumental‐variableestimator(2SLS)in whichoutcomeandevaluativedomainservedasinstrumentsforleaderprototypicality,toisolateexogenousvariancebetweenourmeditatorandleaderendorsement.Indeed,ourmanipulationsareexogenous bydesignandiftheyarestrongandpredictourdependentmeasure onlythroughourmediatortheycanbeusedasinstruments(Sajons, 2020).TheF‐statistictestingthejointsignificanceofoutcomeand evaluativedomaininthe firststageregressionwas122.29.Itwas thereforewellabovethestrictercriticalvalueof16.38derivedfrom StockandYogo(2005).Thismeansthatourinstrumentsarestrong. However,ourover‐identificationtestissignificant(χ 2 =22.95, p<.001),indicatingthatourinstrumentsinfluenceleaderendorsementthroughpathsotherthantheevaluativedomain.Thus,our instrumentsarenot fittoestimateanIVmodel,sinceendorsementis notpredictedonlythroughleaderprototypicality.Theestimatesfrom ourmediationmodelcannotthereforebeconsideredcausal,butrather correlationalandthereducedformmodelresultsaretheonlyreliable estimatesthatwecanreport.Futureresearchshouldbeconductedto furtherexaminethecausalpathwehypothesised.
DiscussionofStudy1andIntroductiontoStudy2. Study1 showedthataleader’sfailureisdetrimentalforhowtheyareperceivedandfortheextenttowhichtheyareendorsedbygroupmembers,but,crucially,thatthisissubstantiallystrongerwhenthe failureisbasedonmoralityratherthancompetenceconsiderations. InStudy2wepitleadermoralityandcompetenceagainsteachother toestablishwhethercompetencefailuresarebettercompensatedby moralsuccessesthantheotherwayaround.Specifically,wefacedparticipantswithincongruentsituationsinwhichtheleaderfailedonone domainandsucceedontheother.
BasedonStudy1andonpreviousliteratureshowingtheprominenceofmoralityovercompetenceinindividualandgroupevaluations(e.g., Brambilla,Rusconi,Sacchi,&Cherubini,2011;Ellemers etal.,2008;Pagliaro,Ellemers,&Barreto,2011;Pagliaroetal.,
2016),wehypothesisedthatparticipantswouldevaluatetheleader morenegativelywhentheyfailedonmorality(eventhoughtheysucceedoncompetence)thanwhentheyfailedoncompetence(even thoughtheysucceedonmorality) – thatis,negativejudgementson competencecanbepartiallycompensatedbypositivejudgementson morality,morethantheotherwayaround.Moreover,weexpected thatparticipantswouldbelesswillingtoendorsetheleaderwhenthey displayedimmoralbehaviour(despitetheircompetence)thanwhen theydisplayedincompetentbehaviour(despitemorality).Inlinewith Study1,wealsoexpectedthattheeffectofmoralfailureonleader endorsementwouldbemediatedbyreducedperceivedprototypicality oftheleader.Weagainexploredtheeffectofleadergender,butdid notexpectanyeffectsofthisfactor,inlinewithStudy10 sresults.
Method
DesignandParticipants. Participantswererandomlyassignedto oneofthefourconditionsresultingfroma2(Outcomeofbehaviour: MoralbutIncompetentvs.ImmoralbutCompetent)×2(Leader’sGender:Malevs.Female)betweenparticipantsdesign.Asintheprevious study,wecollecteddatainaclassroom,recruitingallavailableparticipants.Onehundredand fiftyundergraduateswererandomlyassigned totheexperimentalconditions(120females,28males,2unknowns; meanage =21.82; SD =3.63)andvoluntarilyparticipatedinthe study.AllparticipantswereresidentinItaly.
Procedure. Theprocedurewasalmostidenticaltothatusedin Study1withsomerelevantchangestothemanipulations.Inparticular,participantswerefacedwithoneoftwoincongruentscenarios describingamaleorafemaleleader’sactivity.Inthe firstone,theleaderwasdescribedasmanagingthepublicmoneyinadishonestand insincereway,havingusedpartofthatmoneyfortheirpersonalpurpose;Atthesametime,theyweredescribedasbehavinginacompetentway,havingproducedaperfectreport,andneverhavingmade accountancymistakeswiththepublicmoney(ImmoralbutCompetent condition).Inthesecondcondition,theleaderwasdescribedasbehavinginahonestandsincereway,neverhavingusedpartsofthepublic moneyfortheirpersonalpurpose;Atthesametime,however,they weredescribedasmanagingthepublicmoneyinanincompetent way,havingmadeaseriesofaccountancymistakeswiththepublic money(MoralbutIncompetentcondition).
Thesemanipulationswerecheckedbyaskingparticipantstorecall theleaders’ behaviourbychoosingoneofseveraloptionsona multiple‐choicequestion,asintheStudy1(alternatives:yes,no,I donotremember).Seventeenparticipantsfailedthesemanipulation checks,andtheirresponseswerediscardedfromthedataset(retained sample=133).Wealsorantheanalyseswiththewholesampleand theresultswerealmostidenticaltowhatisreportedhere.
Weagainassessedtheextenttowhichparticipantsperceivedthe describedleaderas Moral (α =0.94)and Competent (α =0.84). Global evaluations ofleaderwereprovidedonascalerangingfrom1(completelynegative)to7(completelypositive). Perceivedingroupprototypicality (α =0.89)andleader endorsement (α =0.95)werealsoassessedas inStudy1.
Table2
Study2:Means,standarddeviations,correlations,andCronbach'salphavalues. EvaluationsImmoralbut Competent Incompetentbut Moral
Results. Weperformeda2(Outcomeofbehaviour:MoralandIncompetence vs.ImmoralandCompetence)×2(Leader’sGender:Malevs. Female)MANOVAincludingallthedependentvariablesdescribed above. Table2 reportthedescriptivestatisticsandtheintercorrelationsforallvariablesinthisstudy.
Atthemultivariatelevel,theanalysisshowedamaineffectofoutcome F(5,124)=150.86, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.86;butneitherthe maineffectofleader’sgender F(5,124)=0.79, p =.56,northeinteractionweresignificant, F(5,124)=0.72, p =.61. LeaderMoralityandCompetence. Attheunivariatelevel,with regardstoleadermoralitythemaineffectofoutcome, F (1,128)=666.59, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.84,wassignificant.As intended,participantsevaluatedleadersaslessmoralwhentheyhad amoralfailurewithacompetencesuccess(M =1.77, SD =0.96)than whentheybehavedmorallybutincompetently(M =5.80, SD =0.81).
Withregardstotheleader’scompetence,theanalysisshowedthat themaineffectofoutcomewassignificant, F (1,128)=22.06, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.15.Asintended,participantsevaluatedleader asmorecompetentwhentheywerecompetentbutimmoral (M =4.83, SD =1.39)thantheyweremoralbutincompetent (M =3.71, SD =1.36).
GlobalImpressionofLeader. Theevaluationofglobalimpression showedamaineffectofoutcomeofbehaviourwassignificant, F (1,128)=148.64, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.54.Participantsreported amorenegativeevaluationoftheleaderwhentheywereimmoralbut competent(M =2.71, SD =1.19)thanincompetentbutmoral (M =4.97, SD =0.90),asexpected.
Leader’sPrototypicality Themaineffectofoutcomewassignificant, F (1,128)=63.13, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.33.Asexpected,participantsconsideredtheleaderasmoreprototypicaloftheiringroup whentheyweremoralbutincompetent(M =4.17, SD =1.15)comparedtowhentheywerecompetentbutimmoral(M =2.59, SD =1.11).
LeaderEndorsement Themaineffectofoutcomewassignificant, F (1,128)=79.56, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.38.Asexpected,participantswerelesswillingtoendorsetheleaderwhentheywereimmoral butcompetent(M =1.70, SD =1.02)thantheywereincompetentbut moral(M =3.65, SD =1.47).
Mediation. Wethenconductedamediationanalysistotestwhether theeffectofoutcome(codedas0= CompetentbutImmoral;1= Moral butIncompetent)onleaderendorsementwasmediatedbyperceived prototypicalityoftheleaderasastudentofthe UniversityX(PROCESSmodel4;5000resampling;see Fig.1).
Theoverallequationwassignificant,R2 =0.57, F(2,130)=85.79, p <.001.Asshownin Fig.1,thebehaviouroftheleadersignificantly predictedbothleaderendorsementandperceptionofleaderprototypicality.Moreimportantly,theindirecteffectoftheoutcomeofbehaviouroftheleaderonleaderendorsementthroughtheperceptionof leaderprototypicalitywassignificant(b=0.99;95%CI: LL=0.6548;UL=1.3889).Inlinewithourhypothesis,aleader behavinginanimmoralbutcompetentwaywasperceivedaslessprototypical,andthisinturnreducedtheextenttowhichgroupmembers
1.Morality1.770.965.800.81(0.94) 2.Competence4.831.393.711.36 0.27**(0.84)
3.GlobalImpression2.711.194.970.900.81*** 0.041
4.Prototypicality2.591.114.171.150.61*** 0.050.69***(0.89) 5.Endorsement1.701.023.651.470.70***0.040.77***0.67***(0.95)
Note.Internalreliabilitycoefficients(Cronbach'salphavalues)arelistedalongthediagonal.*p<.05,**p<.01***p<.001.
Fig.1. Study2.Mediationmodelinwhichtheleader’sbehavior(codedas0=ImmoralbutCompetent;1=MoralbutIncompetent)predictsendorsement throughLeader’sPrototypicalityasmediator.Note:Mediationmodelconductedwithaninstrumentalvariableestimator(VIestimate).Theresultsdemonstrate thatusingOLSregressiontheestimateoftheeffectmaynotbeinterpretableascausal.**p<.01;***p<.001.
werewillingtoendorsethisleader,comparedtoaleaderwhobehaved inamoralbutincompetentmanner.
Asinstudy1,itislikelythatleaderprototypicalityisendogenous toleaderendorsement.Thus,weagainsoughttoestimatethecausal effectofleaderprototypicalityonleaderendorsementbyusingan instrumentalvariableapproachinoutcomeservedasaninstrument forleaderprototypicality.Ourinstrumentsarestatisticallystrong. TheassociatedF‐statisticfortheoutcomeofbehaviorinthe first‐stageregressionwas78.328.Itwasthereforewellabovethestricter criticalvalueof16.38asderivedfrom StockandYogo(2005).However,hereagainouroveridentification‐testwassignificant (χ 2 =11.65,p<.001),indicatingthatourinstrumentsdonotpredict leaderendorsementonlythroughleaderprototypicality.Thus,wecannotestimateaninstrumentalmodelinordertoretrievecausalestimates.Sinceourmeditationislikelytobeendogenous,onlythe reducedformestimatesshouldbetrusted i.e.,theestimatesobtained fromthemodelinwhichourmediatorisnotincluded.
DiscussionofStudy2andIntroductiontoStudy3. Study2 showedthatfollowersarelesswillingtoendorsealeaderwhoiscompetentbutimmoralthanaleaderthatisincompetentbutmoral.Therefore,leaderimmoralityweighedmorestronglyingroupmembers’ judgementsoftheirleaderthanleaderincompetence.Thiswasagain mediatedbytheextenttowhichparticipantsrecognisedtheleader asprototypicalofthegroup.Nevertheless,itcanbearguedthat,in ourscenarios,strongereffectsofmoralitymightbeduetothefactthat immoralscenariosdescribedsituationsinwhichtheleader’sbehaviour producedpersonalgainforhim/her.Therefore,Study3wasconductedwithdifferentscenariosinwhichtheimmoralbehaviourof theleaderdidnotproduceanypersonalgain.Basedonthenulleffect ofleader’sgenderinstudies1and2,wedecidednottomanipulatethis factorfurtherinstudy3.ThehypotheseswerethesameasinStudy2.
Method
Designandparticipants Participantswererandomlyassignedto oneofthetwoconditions(Outcomeofbehaviour:MoralbutIncompetentvs.ImmoralbutCompetent)resultingfromasingle‐factor betweenparticipantsdesign.Twohundredninety‐sevenparticipants wererandomlyrecruitedviaonlinedataplatform “Clickworker” (182females,114males,1other; meanage =37.71; SD =9.09) andvoluntarilyparticipatedinthestudy.Alloftheparticipantsinthis studywereresidentintheUK.Althoughwehavenowfurtherdemographicinformationonoursample,thegeneralcharacteristicsofthe populationofClickworkersaredocumentedonthisplatform,i.e.,over
2.2million ‘workers’,ofwhich51%aremaleand49%female;from18 to80yearsofage(thelargestagegroupis25–34yearolds,whichare 41%ofthesample),65%ofparticipantshaveahighschooldegree, 34%acollegedegree,and1%hasaPhD;46%resideinNorthAmerica 30inEurope,15%inAsia,and7%inSouthAmerica,and1%inAfrica; 47%arenativeEnglishspeakers,12%nativeGerman,3%nativeSpanish,3%nativeFrench,35%other.
Procedure. Theprocedurewasalmostidenticaltothatusedin Study2withsomerelevantchangestothemanipulations.Inparticular,participantswerefacedwithoneoftwoincongruentscenarios describingleader’sactivities.Thedescribedleaderwasthemanager ofacompanyandhadtodrawupabudgetthattheleaderdiscovered haddeliberatelytamperedwithbytheadministrativeoffices.Inone conditiontheleaderusedtheirexcellentcalculationskillstodetect themisconduct,butchosetokeeptheimproprietyhidden,resulting incompetentbutdishonestbehaviour(ImmoralbutCompetentcondition).Inthesecondcondition,theleadercouldnotdetecttheerror becauseoftheirincompetence,butatthesametimetheydidnot behaveimmorallybecausetheydidnothidethetampering(Moral butIncompetentcondition).
Thesemanipulationswerecheckedbyaskingparticipantstorecall theleaders’ behaviourbychoosingoneofseveraloptionsona multiple‐choicequestion,asintheStudy1and2(alternatives:yes, no,Idonotremember).Sixty‐eightparticipantsfailedthesemanipulationchecks,andtheirresponseswerediscardedfromthedataset(retainedsample=229).Thisnumberishigherthanintheprior studies,whichisconsistentwiththeswitchtoonlinedatacollection, insteadofcollectingthedatainaclassroom.Wealsorantheanalyses withthewholesampleandtheresultswerealmostidenticaltowhatis reportedhere.
Weagainassessedtheextenttowhichparticipantsperceivedthe describedleaderas moral (α =0.91), competent (α =0.87),and global evaluation oftheleader. Leader’sprototypicality (α =0.96)andleader endorsement (α =0.92)werealsoassessedasabove.
Results. Weperformed(Outcomeofbehaviour: MoralandIncompetentvs.ImmoralandCompetent)aMANOVAincludingallthedependentvariablesdescribedabove. Tables3 reportthedescriptive statisticsandtheintercorrelationsforallvariablesinthisstudy.At themultivariatelevel,theanalysisshowedamaineffectoftheleader’s behavior F(5,223)=102.09, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.70
Leadermoralityandcompetence. Attheunivariatelevel,with regardstoleadermoralitythemaineffectofoutcome, F (1,227)=204.49, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.47,wassignificant.The evaluationoftheleader’smoralityshowedthat,asintended,partici-
Table3
Study3.Means,standarddeviations,correlations,andCronbach'salphavalues. EvaluationsImmoralbut Competent Incompetentbut Moral
MSDMSD
1.Morality2.821.445.241.08(0.91)
2.Competence4.621.423.001.18 0.01(0.87)
3.GlobalImpression3.141.343.961.190.67***0.30***1
4.Prototypicality2.931.633.571.520.46***0.30***0.58***(0.96)
5.Endorsement3.121.624.711.480.62***0.020.65***0.43***(0.92)
Note.Internalreliabilitycoefficients(Cronbach'salphavalues)arelistedalongthediagonal*p<.05,**p<.01***p<.001.
pantsevaluatedtheleaderaslessmoralwhentheywereimmoralbut competent(M =2.82, SD =1.44)thantheyweremoralbutincompetent(M =5.24, SD =1.08).
Asregardsleader’scompetence,asintended,themaineffectofoutcome, F (1,227)=87.48, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.28wassignificant. Indeed,participantsevaluatedtheleaderasmorecompetentwhen theywerecompetentbutimmoral(M =4.62, SD =1.42)thanthey weremoralbutincompetent(M =3.00, SD =1.18).
Globalimpressionoftheleader. Asexpected,participantsreported amorenegativeevaluationoftheleaderintheimmoralbutcompetent (M =3.14, SD =1.34)thanintheincompetentbutmoralcondition (M =3.69, SD =1.19), F(1,227)=24.36, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.10.
Leader’sprototypicality. Inlinewithourprediction,participants consideredtheleaderasmoreprototypicaloftheiringroupwhenthey weremoralbutincompetent(M =3.57, SD =1.52)comparedto whentheywerecompetentbutimmoral(M =2.93, SD =1.63), F (1,227)=9.32, p =.003,partial η 2 =0.04.
Leaderendorsement. Asexpected,participantsreportedlowerwillingnesstoendorsetheleaderwhentheywereimmoralbutcompetent (M =3.12, SD =1.62)thantheywereincompetentbutmoral (M =4.71, SD =1.48), F(1,227)=59.79, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.21.
Mediation. Weagaintestedamediationmodelinwhichtheoutcomeoftheleader’sbehaviour(codedas0= CompetentbutImmoral; 1= MoralbutIncompetent)predictsleader’sprototypicality,whichin turnaffectsendorsement.Themodelisdepictedin Fig.2 (model4). Theoverallequationwassignificant, R2 =0.31, F(2,226)=51.64, p <.001.Abootstrappingprocedurewith5,000resamplesshowed thattheindirecteffectoftheleader’sbehaviouronendorsement throughthehypothesisedmediatorwassignificant, B =0.23,CI: LL=0.0758;UL=0.4133.
Asinstudies2and3,itislikelythatleaderprototypicalityis endogenoustoleaderendorsement.Again,wesoughttotestthecausal natureofthisrelationshipbyestimatinganinstrumentalvariable regressioninwhichoutcomeisusedasaninstrumentforleaderprototypicality.Outcomeisexogenousbydesign.Additionally,itisstatisticallystrong.TheassociatedF‐statisticfortheoutcomeofbehaviorin the first‐stageregressionwas51.645.Itwasthereforewellabovethe strictercriticalvalueof16.38asderivedfrom StockandYogo (2005),indicatingthattheinstrumentisindeedrelevant.However, hereagainwe findthatourinstrumentdoesnotsatisfyacornerstone assumptionofIVregression,namelythattheinstrumentspredictthe dependentvariableonlythroughtheinstrumentedmediator.Our overidentification‐testwassignificant(χ2=36.86,p<.001),indicatingthatourinstrumentsdonotpredictleaderendorsementonly throughleaderprototypicality.Therefore,wecannotinterpretourestimatesascausalbutratherascorrelational.Thus,onlythereduced formestimatesshouldbetrustedasforStudies1and2.
DiscussionofStudy3andIntroductiontoStudy4. Theresults ofStudy3weresimilartothoseofStudy2,demonstratingthatmoralityweighsmorethancompetenceintheevaluationofaleader,even whennoimmoralbehaviourisnotaccompaniedbypersonalbenefit. Study4wasdesignedtomanipulatethemediatortestedinStudies 1–3,i.e.theleader’sgroupprototypicality.
Wearguethatanimmoralleaderisrejectedbecauseitisnotperceivedasprototypicalofthegroup.Inaddition,sincealeadercan beparticularlywellpositionedtoportraywhatthegroupisaboutto theoutsideworld,theirbehaviour,ifnegative,canreflectpoorlyon thegroup.Assuch,inStudies1–3wedemonstratedthatgroupmembersaremotivatedtoseeanimmoralleaderaslessprototypicalofthe groupthanamoralleader,inthiswayreducingtheextenttowhichit canreflectinthegroup’sreputation.Ifso,thenleadermorality(vs. immorality)shouldbeparticularlyimportantwhentheleaderis
Fig.2. Study3.Mediationmodelinwhichtheleader’sbehavior(codedas0=ImmoralbutCompetent;1=MoralbutIncompetent)predictsendorsement throughLeader’sPrototypicalityasmediator.Note:Mediationmodelconductedwithaninstrumentalvariableestimator(VIestimate).Theresultsdemonstrate thatusingOLSregressiontheestimateoftheeffectmaynotbeinterpretableascausal.**p<.01;***p<.001.
regardedasprototypical(vs.not).Atthesametime,leaderimmorality mightunderminethebeneficialeffectofleaderprototypicalityon leadershipendorsement.Totestthis,weadoptedanexperimental designandcomparedfollowers’ reactionstotheirleader’sbehaviour (ImmoralbutCompetent vs. IncompetentbutMoral)asafunctionof theleader’sprototypicality(high vs. low).Basedontheresultsobtained inpreviousstudies,andonourtheoreticalmodel,wehypothesized thattheeffectoftheleader’simmoralityonendorsementwouldbe qualifiedbytheirprototypicality:Inparticular,wepredictedthatparticipantswouldendorseanimmoralleadertoalesserextentwhen theyareperceivedasmoreprototypical(vs.lessprototypical)oftheir group.
Method
Designandparticipants Participantswererandomlyassignedto oneofthefourconditionsresultingfroma2(Outcomeofbehaviour: MoralbutIncompetentvs.ImmoralbutCompetent)×2(GroupPrototypicality:Highvs.Low)betweenparticipantsdesign.Onehundredand ninety‐twoundergraduateswererecruitedinaPsychologyclass(138 females,53males,1unknown; Mage =21.64; SD =3.09)atanItalianuniversityandvoluntarilyparticipatedinthestudy.Wecollected responsesfromallthestudentspresentedintheclassroom.
Procedure. Theprocedurewasalmostidenticaltothatusedin Study2and3withsomerelevantchangesinthemanipulations.Inparticular,participantswerefacedwithoneoffourscenarios.Tomanipulateleadergroupprototypicality,inonecondition,theleader –alwaysaman,asinStudy3 – wasdescribedas veryprototypical of thecompany,sinceasurveyconductedwithinthecompanyhad judgedthemasprototypicalandrepresentativeofthegroup;inthe othercondition,theleaderwasdescribedasnotveryprototypicalof thecompany,sonotrepresentativeofthetypicalworkerinthatorganization.Tomanipulateleader’sbehaviour,inoneconditiontheleaderdetectedmisconductbyusingtheirexcellentcalculationskills, butkepttheimproprietyhidden,resultingincompetentbutdishonest behaviour(ImmoralbutCompetentcondition).Intheothercondition, theleadercouldnotdetecttheerrorbecauseoftheirincompetence, butatthesametimehedidnotbehaveimmoralbecausehedidnot hidethetamperinginavoluntaryway(MoralbutIncompetent condition).
Thesemanipulationswerecheckedbyaskingparticipantstorecall theleaders’ behaviourandleader’sprototypicalitybychoosingoneof severaloptionsonamultiple‐choicequestion,asinotherstudies(alternatives:yes,no,Idonotremember).Fiftyparticipantsfailedthese manipulationchecks,andtheirresponseswerediscardedfromthe
Table4
Study4.Means,standarddeviations,correlations,andCronbach'salphavalues.
Evaluations Leader’sBehaviorLeader’sPrototypicality
dataset(retainedsample=142).Afterreadingthearticle,participants evaluatedtheleader’s(“Onthebasisofwhatyouhaveread,towhat extentdoyouconsiderMarcoas ”)on: Morality (trustworthy,honest, sincere;Cronbach’s α =0.86),and competence (competent,skilled, bright; Cronbach’s α =0.52),onascalerangingfrom1= notatall to7= alot).Participantsadditionallyprovided aglobalevaluation oftheleaderonascalerangingfrom1(completelynegative)to7(completelypositive).Then,participantsindicatedtheir endorsement ofthe leaderonthesamefouritems,asabove(1= notatall 7= alot;Cronbach’s α =0.89).
Results. Weperformeda2(Leader’sBehavior:ImmoralbutCompetentvs.IncompetentbutMoral)×2(Leader’sPrototypicality:Highvs. Low)MANOVAincludingallthedependentvariablesdescribedabove. Tables4 reportthedescriptivestatisticsandthecorrelationsforthe variablesinthisstudy.
Atthemultivariatelevel,theanalysisshowedamaineffectofleader’sbehaviour F(4,133)=71.11, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.68anda maineffectofleader’sprototypicality F(4,133)=3.33, p =.01,partial η 2 =0.09;asignificantinteractionbetweenleader’sbehaviour andleader’sprototypicalityfurtheremerged F(4,133)=3.28, p =.01,partial η 2 =0.09
Leadermoralityandcompetence. Attheunivariatelevel,morality judgementsshowedthatboththemaineffectofleader’sbehavior, F (1,136)=185.80, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.58,andthemaineffect ofleader’sprototypicality, F(1,136)=4.21, p =.04partial η 2 =0.03,weresignificant.Therewasalsoasignificantinteraction, F(1,136)=3.59, p =.06,partial η 2 =0.03.
Inthemoralbutincompetentcondition,ahighprototypicalleader wasperceivedasmoremoral(M =5.50; SD =1.08)thanalowprototypicalleader(M =4.76; SD =0.95).Bycontrast,intheimmoral butcompetentconditiontheleaderwasperceivedassimilarly immoralinthehighprototypicalitycondition(M =2.56; SD =1.12)andinthelowprototypicalitycondition(M =2.53; SD =1.21).Thatis,prototypicalitywasnotblindlyassociatedwith perceivedleadermorality,sincewhenparticipantsweretoldtheleaderwasprototypicalbutimmoraltheycouldreflectthisintheir evaluations.
Withregardstotheleader’scompetence,therewasasignificant maineffectofleader’sbehavior, F(1,136)=46.24, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.25.Asintended,theleaderwasconsideredmorecompetent whenhebehavedcompetentlybutimmorally(M =5.03, SD =1.09),comparedtothemoralbutincompetentcondition (M =3.39, SD =1.65).Neitherthemaineffectofprototypicality, F (1,138)=0.01, p =.92,northeinteractionwerereliable, F (1,138)=0.85, p =.36.
1.MoralityImmoralbutCompetentHigh2.561.12(0.86)
Low2.531.21
MoralbutIncompetentHigh5.501.08
Low4.760.95
2.CompetenceImmoralbutCompetentHigh5.151.02 0.28***(0.52) Low4.941.17
MoralbutIncompetentHigh3.311.26
Low3.522.12
3.GlobalImpressionImmoralbutCompetentHigh3.341.460.57***0.26***1 Low3.761.19
MoralbutIncompetentHigh4.671.42
Low4.151.19
4.EndorsementImmoralbutCompetentHigh3.691.560.61*** 0.160.54***(0.89) Low3.801.18
MoralbutCompetentHigh5.671.00
Low4.401.21
Note.Internalreliabilitycoefficients(Cronbach'salphavalues)arelistedalongthediagonal*p<.05,**p<.01***p<.001.
MSD1.2.3.4.
Globalimpressionoftheleader Themaineffectofleader’sbehaviorwassignificant, F(1,136)=14.22, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.10.The effectofleader’sprototypicalitywasnotreliable, F(1,136)=0.05, p =.83.Theeffectofleader’sbehaviorwasqualifiedbyareliable interactionbetweenleader’sbehaviorandprototypicality, F (1,136)=4.13, p =.04,partial η 2 =0.03.Inthehighprototypicality condition,participantsevaluatedtheleadermorenegativelywhenthe leaderbehavedimmorallybutcompetently(M =3.34, SD =1.46) thanmorallybutincompetently(M =4.67, SD =1.42).Inthelow prototypicalitycondition,instead,theleaderwasevaluatedsimilarly whentheybehavedimmorallybutcompetently(M =3.76, SD =1.19)andwhentheybehavedmorallybutincompetently (M =4.15, SD =1.19).Theeffectoftheleader’sprototypicality wasnotqualifiedbytheleaders’ behavior.Thatis,moralitywasa moreimportantdeterminantofleaderevaluationwhentheleader wasperceivedasprototypical.
Leaderendorsement Asignificantmaineffectsofleader’sbehavior, F(1,136)=35.62, p <.001,partial η 2 =0.21,andofleader’sprototypicality, F(1,136)=7.27, p =.01,partial η 2 =0.05,anda significantinteractionbetweenthesetwofactors, F(1,136)=10.25, p =.002,partial η 2 =0.06.Inthehighprototypicalitycondition,participantsreportedlowerwillingnesstoendorsetheleaderwhenthe leaderbehavedinanimmoralbutcompetentway(M =3.69, SD =1.56)comparedtowhentheleaderbehavedinamoralbut incompetentway(M =5.67, SD =1.00).Inthelowprototypicality condition,instead,leaderendorsementwassimilarintheimmoral butcompetentcondition(M =3.80, SD =1.18)andinthemoral butincompetentcondition(M =4.40, SD =1.21).Thatis,leader moralitywasamoreimportantdeterminantofleadershipendorsementwhentheleaderwasprototypical,andthebeneficialeffectofleaderprototypicalityonleadershipendorsementwasunderminedby leaderimmorality.
Generaldiscussion
Accordingtothesocialidentityapproachtoleadership,theleader‐followersdynamicreflectsanidentitydefinitionprocessbywhichfollowerslooktotheleaderstodefineandshareacollectiveidentity,and interpretthesocialworld(Hogg&vanKnippenberg,2003;Hogg, 2001).Followingthisrationale,themoretheleadersareperceived astypical/idealmembersofthegroup,themoretheyaretrusted andendorsed(Barreto&Hogg,2017).Thepresentsetofstudiesintegratetheideathatleadershipeffectivenessislinkedtotheabilityof theleadertoembodythecentralvaluesofagroup(i.e.,tobeprototypicalofthegroup)withtheideathatmoralityiscentraltogroupidentity.Specifically,wetheorizedandfoundthatgroupmembers disengagedfromanimmoral(vs.moral)leader,andthatthisdisengagementstemmedfromtheperceptionthattheywerelessprototypicaloftheingroup.ThiswassupportedbyStudies1,2,and3inwhich theproposedmediator(ingroupprototypicality)wasmeasured,andby Study4,inwhichitwasmanipulatedinafactorialdesign.Study4 additionallyclarifiedthatleadermoralityisparticularlyimportant whenaleaderisdescribedasprototypical.
Indoingso,ourresearchtriedtoconnectapproachestoleadership thatseeleadershipasapropertyofindividualswhopossessspecific attributeswiththesocialidentityapproach,whichseesleadershipas anemerginggroupproperty.Byshowingthatperceivedleadermoralitypredictsperceivedleaderprototypicalittyandendorsement,we expandthesocialidentityapproachwiththeconsiderationofaspecificattributethatgroupmembersparticularlyvalue(Leachetal., 2007).Wedothisbyconsideringmoralityasafundamentalgroupregulationelement,afeaturethatiscoretogroupidentity.Indeed,participantsinourstudiesconsistentlysawthemoralleaderasthemost prototypicalofthegroup,bothcomparedtoanimmoralleaderand comparedtoacompetentleader.
Insum,ourresultssupporttheideathattheleader–followerprocessmaybeinterpretedastheresultofsharedcollectiveidentity (Haslametal.,2011;Hogg&Abrams,1993),butaddtothisthe knowledgethatleadermoralityiskeytothissenseofidentityand is,therefore,astrongpredictoroftheextenttowhichaleadercan beseenasprototypicaloftheingroup.Indoingso,wealsocomplementpastresearchonmoralityingroupprocessesbyprovidingfurther evidencetothecentralityofthemoraldomaininthedefinitionand managementofthecollectiveself(Ellemersetal.,2013).
Weadditionallyshowthatleadermoralityplaysthisrolemore stronglythandoesleadercompetence alsoapositiveattributethat isoftendesiredinleaders.Thatis,groupmemberspreferredaleader whowasmoralbutincompetent(andthereforenotveryeffective,but harmless)toaleaderwhowasimmoralbutcompetent(andtherefore verycapableofactingontheirimmoralbeliefs).And,importantly,this preferencewasassociatedwiththeviewthatthemoralleaderwas moretypicalofthegroup,evenwhentheywerealsoincompetent.
Insummary,inthesetofstudiespresentedhereweconsistently showedthatmoralattributes(comparedtoanotherpositiveattribute thatcanbeseenasimportanttoleadershipeffectiveness,i.e.,competence)haveafundamentalimportanceontheformationofjudgments aboutaleaderandonbehaviouraltendenciestowardsthem.Thisof coursedoesnotmeaninanywaythatcompetenceisnotimportant whenjudgingandsupportingaleader.Andindeed,ourresultsseem tosuggestthattheevaluativedomainismostimportantwhentheleaderbehavesinanegativeway(orwhentheyhaveaset‐back).So,itis notmoralvs.competentbehaviourthatmattersasmuchasimmoral vs.incompetentbehaviour.Indailylife,setbacksanderrorsarepart ofeveryleader’sportfolioofbehaviours,butour findingshighlight thatgroupmembers’ toleranceforthesewilldependonwhetherthey areinterpretedasmoralorcompetencefailures.Thisisstronglyinline withpreviousevidenceabouttheso‐callednegativityeffect accordingtowhichobserversplacegreaterweightonnegativethanpositive informationwhenforminganimpressionofothers,andsubsequently decidewhethertoapproachoravoidthem areparticularlypronouncedforbehavioursrelevanttomorality.Asaresult,asingle instanceofdishonestbehaviourcanspoilpreviousexpectationsof honesty(Pagliaroetal.,2016;Reeder&Brewer,1979;Reeder& Coovert,1986;Skowronski&Carlston,1987).
Itisalsoworthrelatingour findingstothosethathaveestablished thatleaderswhoareseenasprototypicaloftheingrouparegivena licensetofail(Giessner&VanKnippenberg,2008).Indeed,thiswas shownbyvaryingleadercompetenceandprototypicalityandshowing thatingroupmemberstoleratedcompetence‐basedfailuresfromprototypicalleaders,butnotfromnon‐prototypicalones.Our findingsare similarinthecompetencedomain,butnotwhentheleaderfailsto behavemorally.Thissuggeststhatthelicense‐to‐faildocumentedfor prototypicalleadersinpreviousresearchmightnotapplyto morality‐basedfailures.
Thisworkdemonstratesthatmoralityhasafargreaterweightthan otherattributesimportanttoaleader(suchastheircompetence)on theperceptionoftheleaderasagroup’sprototypicalmember.With theseresults,weaddtotheliteraturebyshowingthatbehavingconsistentlywiththemoralvaluesimportanttothegroupmakestheleaders highlyprototypicalmembers,enhancingtheirabilitytopositively impactthegroup,astheywillbeabletorepresentthesharedgroup’s moralidentity.
Limitationsandfuturedirections
Althoughourmainhypotheseswereconsistentlysupportedacross thefourstudies,therearesomelimitationsthatneedtobeaddressed andcansuggestfurtheravenuesforfutureresearch.The firstlimitationrelatestotheuseofdeception,andthepresentationof fictitious scenariostoparticipants.Thoughdeceptionisingeneralnotanideal procedure,wedecidedtorelyonitbecauseperceptionsofingroup
leadersastheyoccurinreallifeconflatevariousfactorssuchascompetenceandmorality,makingthesetwodimensionsandtheireffects hardtodisentangle.However,aspreviousresearchshowed (Ellemersetal.,2013;Leachetal.,2007),itistheoreticallypossible todifferentiatebetweenthesetwodomainsandweaimedtodoso experimentallyinthispaper.Moreover,resultsofthemanipulation checksconfirmedthatfullexperimentalcontrolwasmaintainedand thatparticipantsactuallybelievedexperimentalinstructions.Future researchshouldfocusondevelopingproceduresthatallowtoexamine thisinthe field,withoutresortingtodeception.
Regardingtheuseof fictitiousscenarios,itcouldalsobeargued thatinrealsituationsaleaderisneverevaluatedonlyalongoneevaluativedomain.Usually,inrealsituations,informationaboutother aspectsimportanttoaleaderisalsoweighed.Forexample,ifinformationisavailableabouttheleader’scompetenceormorality‐based behaviour,followersmostlikelywillinferonefromtheother,asoften happensininterpersonalperceptions(VanLange&Kuhlman,1994). Ourexperimentalapproachislikelytohavestrengthenedthedistinctionbetweenmoralvs.competentbehaviour.Nevertheless,thereis ampleevidenceshowingthatindividualsareabletodistinguishmoralityfromcompetence(e.g., Ellemersetal.,2008;Leachetal.,2007; Pagliaroetal.,2011),eventhoughtheyarepositivelycorrelatedin interpersonalimpressions,anditiseasytoimaginerealsituationsin whichaleader’sbehaviourdivergesonthetwoevaluativedomains. Thus,althoughtheremaybeotherfactorsthatinterveneinmorecomplexandambiguoussituations,webelieveourprocedureappropriatelyresembleswhatcouldbearealsituation.
Asecondavenueforfurtherinvestigationisrelativetotheeffectof theleader’sgender.InStudies1and2werethiswasalsomanipulated, wefoundnosignificanteffectoftheleader’sgender(aloneorininteractionwiththeotherfactors)ontheirevaluationandfuturesupport. Nevertheless,previousresearchhasshownarelationbetweengender rolesandtheroleofleader(Eagly,1987;Eagly&Karau,2002;Federal GlassCeiling Commission,1995;Morrison,White,&VanVelsor, 1987).Forexample,womenareentrustedwithmorecharacteristics relatedtohelp,kindness,andreliability;whereasmenareoftenassociatedwithcharacteristicslinkedtoassertiveness,independence,and competence(Bakan,1966;Eagly,1987).Asaresult,leadershipisoften perceivedasapurelymasculinecharacteristic.Thisaspectneedsfurtherinvestigationalsoinlightofthefactthatoursampleswereunbalancedbygender,renderingitimpossibletoinvestigatethepossible interactionbetweentheleader’sandthefollowers’ gender.
Anotherlimitationofthestudiesreferstothesamplesrecruited,as universitystudentswereusedforthreeoutoffourofthesestudies. Althoughthisisquitecommoninpsychologicalresearch,wearereassuredbythefactthatthestudyconductedwithrealemployees(Study 4)revealsresultsconsistentwiththoseobtainedintheotherstudies. Thisstudyfocusedonemployeesinavarietyoforganizations ideal toensurevariabilityinleaderperceptions drawnfromapopulation thatwasalsoolderthanuniversitystudents.However,wedidnotcollectmuchinformationabouttheseemployee’sworkplaces,sofuture researchmightwishtoreplicatethese findingswithemployeesina rangeofworksettingsandexaminewhethertheirspecificcharacteristics(e.g.,areaofactivity)modifytherelationshipsobserved.
Anotheraspectthatisworthinvestigatingisthefactthathistory tellsofmanyexamplesinwhich,despiteimmoralactions,leaders canbesupportedanddefended,suchasinsituationswheretheleader'sunethicalbehaviourproducesbenefitsforthegroup.Thereasons whythesehappenmightlieinthecircumstancesunderwhichgroup membersarewillingtorecognisetheirleadersasimmoralinthe first place,despitewhattooutsidersappearstobeimmoralbehaviour.That is,thoughmoralityappearstobekeytogroupidentity,individualsand groupsarelikelytodifferinpreciselywhattheyregardas(im)moral. Ourstudiesfocusedonaspecificviewofmoralitythatisinlinewith thatadoptedintheliteratureofmoralityingroups i.e.,theideaof honesty,integrity,trustworthiness(e.g., Leachetal.,2007).Butthere
areclearlyothers,andtherearetrade‐offsgroupmembersmightbe verywillingtoaccept,suchastheideathatlyingisacceptableifit isdonetoprotectingroupmembersfromharm.Futureresearchmight wishtobuildonthese findingstofurthercomplexitytherelationship betweenmoralityandgroupbehaviour.
Itisalsointerestingtonotethatourparticipantsdidnotblindly regardaprototypicalleaderasmoral instead,theyweresensitive toinformationaboutimmoralbehaviour.This findingalsoopensavenuesforfutureresearchintothecircumstancesunderwhichgroup membersmightbegintochallengeprototypicalbutimmoralleaders inanattempttoeitheradjusttheirbehaviour,orindeedchange leadership.
Alastintriguingavenueforfutureresearchisrelatedtothefact thatthepresentresearchfocusedontheeffectofmoralityonleader’s groupprototypicalityand,inturn,onendorsement.Futureresearch mightbedesignedtoaddressthesubsequentquestionofhowthis mightfurtherimpactongrouplife.Inotherwords,researchersmight wanttoconsiderthedownstreamconsequencesoftheleader’s(im)moralitynotonlyintermsofleaderendorsement,butalsointerms ofgroupregulationprocessessuchasfordeviancemanagement,group locomotion,andpotentialschisms.
Conclusion
Withthepresentresearch,wesetouttodemonstratethatmorality isafundamentalattributeofleaders,rootedingroupidentity.We showedthataleader’smoralbehaviourtendstobemoreimportant thantheircompetence,inparticularwhenthisbehaviourisnegative (i.e.,immoralityvs.incompetence).Wealsoshowedthatthisprocess ismediatedbytheperceptionoftheleaderasaprototypicalmember oftheingroup.Intheseways,our findingsextendthesocialidentity approachtoleadershipandcontributetohighlightingthecentrality ofmoralityinleader‐followersdynamics.
DeclarationofCompetingInterest
Theauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenoknowncompeting financial interestsorpersonalrelationshipsthatcouldhaveappearedtoinfluencetheworkreportedinthispaper.
References
Bakan,D.(1966). Thedualityofhumanexistence:Anessayonpsychologyandreligion Chicago:RandMcNally
Barreto,N.B.,&Hogg,M.A.(2017).Evaluationofandsupportforgroupprototypical leaders:Ameta-analysisoftwentyyearsofempiricalresearch. SocialInfluence,12, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2017.1316771
Brambilla,M.,&Leach,C.W.(2014).Ontheimportanceofbeingmoral:Thedistinctive roleofmoralityinsocialjudgment. SocialCognition,32,397–408. https://doi.org/ 10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397
Brambilla,M.,Rusconi,P.,Sacchi,S.,&Cherubini,P.(2011).Lookingforhonesty:The primaryroleofmorality(vs.sociabilityandcompetence)ininformationgathering. EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,41,135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/ ejsp.744
Brown,M.E.,Treviño,L.K.,&Harrison,D.(2005).Ethicalleadership:Asociallearning perspectiveforconstructdevelopmentandtesting. OrganizationalBehaviorand HumanDecisionProcesses,97,117–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2005.03.002
Carli,L.L.,&Eagly,A.H.(2007).Overcomingresistance:Theimportanceofleadership style.InB.Kellerman&D.L.Rhode(Eds.), Womenandleadership:Thestateofplay andstrategiesforchange (pp.127148).SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass. Carlyle,T.(1973). SartorResartus.Everyman’sLibrary.London:Dent. Cuddy,A.J.C.,Fiske,S.T.,&Glick,P.(2008).Warmthandcompetenceasuniversal dimensionsofsocialperception:theStereotypeContentModelandtheBIASMap.In M.P.Zanna(Ed.), Advancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology (pp.61–149).San Diego:AcademicPress. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
Dineen,B.R.,Lewicki,R.J.,&Tomlinson,E.C.(2006).Supervisoryguidanceand behavioralintegrity:Relationshipswithemployeecitizenshipanddeviant behaviour. JournalofAppliedPsychology,91,62. https://doi.org/10.1037/00219010.91.3.622
Eagly,A.H.(1987). Sexdifferencesinsocialbehavior:Asocial-roleinterpretation.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum
Eagly,A.H.,&Karau,S.J.(2002).Rolecongruitytheoryofprejudicetowardfemale leaders. PsychologicalReview,109,573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.109.3.573
Eagly,A.H.,Makhijani,M.G.,&Klonsky,B.G.(1992).Genderandtheevaluationof leaders:Ameta-analysis. PsychologicalBulletin,111,3–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.111.1.3
Ellemers,N.(2017). Moralityandtheregulationofsocialbehavior.Groupsasmoral anchors.LondonandNewYork:Routledge
Ellemers,N.,DeGilder,D.,&Haslam,S.A.(2004).Motivatingindividualsandgroupsat work:Asocialidentityperspectiveonleadershipandgroupperformance. Academy ofManagementReview,29,459–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159054
Ellemers,N.,Kingma,L.,VandenBurgt,J.,&Barreto,M.(2011).CorporateSocial Responsibilityasasourceoforganizationalmorality,employeecommitmentand satisfaction. JournalofOrganizationalMoralPsychology,1,97–124
Ellemers,N.,Pagliaro,S.,&Barreto,M.(2013).Moralityandbehaviouralregulationin groups:ASocialIdentityApproach. EuropeanReviewofSocialPsychology,24, 160–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.841490.
Ellemers,N.,Pagliaro,S.,Barreto,M.,&Leach,C.W.(2008).Isitbettertobemoralthan smart?Theeffectsofmoralityandcompetencenormsonthedecisiontoworkat groupstatusimprovement. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,95, 1397–1410. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012628
Ellemers,N.,&vandenBos,K.(2012).Moralityingroups:Onthesocial-regulatory functionsofrightandwrong. SocialandPersonalityPsychologyCompass,6,878–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12001
Commission,F.G.C.(1995). Goodforbusiness:Makingfulluseofthenation’shuman capital.Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice
Fielding,K.S.,&Hogg,M.A.(1997).Socialidentity,self-categorization,andleadership: A fieldstudyofsmallinteractivegroups. GroupDynamics:Theory,Research,and Practice,1,39–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.1.39
Fiske,A.P.(1991). Structuresofsociallife:Thefourelementaryformsofhumanrelations NewYork:FreePress
Fiske,S.T.(1980).Attentionandweightinpersonperception:Theimpactofnegative andextremebehavior. JournalofExperimentalResearchinPersonality,22,889–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
Gerpott,F.H.,VanQuaquebeke,N.,Schlamp,S.,&Voelpel,S.C.(2019).Anidentity perspectiveonethicalleadershiptoexplainorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior:The interplayoffollowermoralidentityandleadergroupprototypicality. Journalof BusinessEthics,156,1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3625-0
Giessner,S.R.,&VanKnippenberg,D.(2008). “Licensetofail”:Goaldefinition,leader groupprototypicality,andperceptionsofleadershipeffectivenessafterleader failure. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,105,14–35. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.04.002.
Gleibs,I.H.,&Haslam,S.A.(2016).Dowewanta fighter?Theinfluenceofgroupstatus andthestabilityofintergrouprelationsonleaderprototypicalityandendorsement. TheLeadershipQuarterly,27,557–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2015.12.001
Glick,P.,&Fiske,S.T.(1996).TheAmbivalentSexismInventory:Differentiatinghostile andbenevolentsexism. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,70,491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Hains,S.C.,Hogg,A.M.,&Duck,J.M.(1997).Self-categorizationandleadership: Effectsofgroupprototypicalityandleaderstereotypicality. PersonalityandSocial PsychologyBulletin,23,1087–1099.10.1177%2F1470595807079382
Haslam,S.A.,&Platow,M.J.(2001).Thelinkbetweenleadershipandfollowership: Howaffirmingsocialidentitytranslatesvisionintoaction. PersonalityandSocial PsychologyBulletin,27,1469–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 01461672012711008
Haslam,S.A.,Reicher,S.D.,&Platow,M.J.(2011). TheNewPsychologyofLeadership: Identity,InfluenceandPower.Hove-NewYork,PsychologyPress Hayes,A.F.(2013). Introductiontomediation,moderation,andconditionalprocessanalysis. Aregression-basedapproach.NewYork:GuilfordPress Hogg,M.A.(2001).Asocialidentitytheoryofleadership. PersonalityandSocial PsychologyReview,5,184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0503_1 Hogg,M.A.,&Abrams,D.(1993).Towardsasingle-processuncertainty-reduction modelofsocialmotivationingroups.InM.A.Hogg&D.Abrams(Eds.), Group motivation:Socialpsychologicalperspectives (pp.173–190).London:HarvesterWheatsheaf.
Hogg,M.A.,&vanKnippenberg,D.(2003).Socialidentityandleadershipprocessesin groups. AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,35,1–52. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0065-2601(03)01001-3
Judge,T.A.,Bono,J.E.,Ilies,R.,&Gerhardt,M.W.(2002).Personalityandleadership: Aqualitativeandquantitativereview. JournalofAppliedPsychology,87,765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.765
Judge,T.A.,Colbert,A.E.,&Ilies,R.(2004).Intelligenceandleadership:Aquantitative reviewandtestoftheoreticalpropositions. JournalofAppliedPsychology,89, 542–552
Kalish,Y.,&Luria,G.(2020).Traitsandtimeinleadershipemergence:Alongitudinal study. TheLeadershipQuarterly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101443.In Press.
Keck,N.,Giessner,S.R.,VanQuaquebeke,N.,&Kruijff,E.(2020).Whendofollowers perceivetheirleadersasethical?Arelationalmodelsperspectiveofnormatively appropriateconduct. JournalofBusinessEthics,164,477–493. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-018-4055-3
Kelloway,E.K.,Gilbert,S.,Fraccaroli,F.,&Sverke,M.(2017).Doesitmatterwholeads us?Thestudyoforganizationalleadership.Anintroductiontoworkand organizationalpsychology:Aninternationalperspective. WileyOnlineLibrary, 192–211 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119168058.ch11
Leach,C.W.,Bilali,R.,&Pagliaro,S.(2014).Groupsandmorality.InJ.Simpson&J.F. Dovidio(Eds.). APAHandbookofPersonalityandSocialPsychology.Interpersonal RelationshipsandGroupProcesses (2,pp.123–149).Washington,DC:American PsychologicalAssociation
Leach,C.W.,Ellemers,N.,&Barreto,M.(2007).Groupvirtue:Theimportanceof morality(vs.competenceandsociability)inthepositiveevaluationofin-group. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,93,234–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.93.2.234
Leroy,H.,Palanski,Y.,&Simons,T.(2012).Authenticleadershipandbehavioural integrityasdriversoffollowercommitmentandperformance. JournalofBusiness Ethics,107,255–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1036-1
Lord,R.G.,Foti,R.J.,&deVader,C.L.(1984).Atestofleadershipcategorization theory:Internalstructure,informationprocessing,andleadershipperceptions. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,34,343–378. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
Montgomery,M.V.,&Cowen,A.P.(2019).Howleadergenderinfluencesexternal audienceresponsetoorganizationalfailures. JournalofPersonalityandSocial Psychology,118(4),639–660. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000176.
Morrison,A.M.,White,R.P.,&VanVelsor,E.(1987). Breakingtheglassceiling:Can womenreachthetopofAmerica’slargestcorporations? Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley
Offermann,L.R.,&Coats,M.R.(2018).Implicittheoriesofleadership:Stabilityand changeovertwodecades. TheLeadershipQuarterly,29,513–522. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.003
Offermann,L.R.,Kennedy,J.K.,&Wirtz,P.W.(1994).Implicitleadershiptheories: Content,structure,andgeneralizability. TheLeadershipQuarterly.,5,43–58. https:// doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
Pagliaro,S.,Ellemers,N.,&Barreto,M.(2011).Sharingmoralvalues:Anticipatedingrouprespectasadeterminantofadherencetomorality-based(butnotcompetencebased)groupnorms. PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,37,1117–1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211406906
Pagliaro,S.,Ellemers,N.,Barreto,M.,&DiCesare,C.(2016).Oncedishonest,always dishonest?Theimpactofperceivedpervasivenessofmoralevaluationsoftheselfon motivationtorestoreamoralreputation. FrontiersinPsychology,7 https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00586
Palanski,M.E.,&Yammarino,F.J.(2011).Impactofbehaviouralintegrityonfollower jobperformance:Athree-studyexamination. LeadershipQuarterly,22,765–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.05.014
Peters,K.,Steffens,N.K.,&Morgenroth,T.(2018).Superstarsarenotnecessarilyrole models:Moralityperceptionsmoderatetheimpactofcompetenceperceptionson supervisorrolemodeling. EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology,48,725–746. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2372.
Peterson,R.S.,Smith,D.B.,Martorana,P.V.,&Owens,P.D.(2003).Theimpactof chiefexecutiveofficerpersonalityontopmanagementteamdynamics. Journalof AppliedPsychology,88,795–808. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.795
Platow,M.J.,&VanKnippenberg,D.(2001).Asocialidentityanalysisofleadership endorsement:Theeffectsofleaderingroupprototypicalityanddistributive intergroupfairness. PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,27,1508–1519. 10.1177%2F01461672012711011
Platow,M.J.,vanKnippenberg,D.,Haslam,S.A.,vanKnippenberg,B.,&Spears,R. (2006).Aspecialgiftwebestowonyouforbeingrepresentativeofus:Considering leadercharismafromaself-categorizationperspective. BritishJournalofSocial Psychology,45,303–320. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X41986
Reeder,G.D.,&Brewer,M.B.(1979).Aschematicmodelofdispositionalattributionin interpersonalperception. PsychologicalReview,86,61–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-295X.86.1.61
Reeder,G.D.,&Coovert,M.D.(1986).Revisinganimpressionofmorality. Social Cognition,4,1–17. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1986.4.1.1
Sajons,G.(2020).Estimatingthecausaleffectofmeasuredendogenousvariables:A tutorialonexperimentallyrandomizedinstrumentalvariables. TheLeadership Quaterly,31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101348
Stock,J.H.,&Yogo,M.(2005).TestingforweakinstrumentsinlinearIVregression.In D.W.Andrews&J.H.Stock(Eds.), Identificationandinferenceforeconometricmodels: EssaysinhonorofThomasRothenberg (pp.80–108).CambridgeUniversityPress Skowronski,J.J.,&Carlston,D.E.(1987).Socialjudgmentandsocialmemory:Therole ofcuediagnosticityinnegativity,positivity,andextremitybiases. Journalof PersonalityandSocialPsychology,52,689–699. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.52.4.689
Tajfel,H.,&Turner,J.C.(1979).Anintegrativetheoryofintergroupconflict.InW.G. Austin&S.Worchel(Eds.), Thesocialpsychologyofintergrouprelations (pp.33–47). Monterey,CA:Books/Cole Turner,J.C.,&Haslam,S.A.(2001).Socialidentity,organizationsandleadership.InM. E.Turner(Ed.), Groupsatwork:Advancesintheoryandresearch (pp.25–65). Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Chicago:Nelson-HallPublishing
Turner,J.C.,Hogg,M.A.,Oakes,P.J.,Reicher,S.D.,&Wetherell,M.S.(1987). Rediscoveringthesocialgroup:Aself-categorizationtheory.Oxford:Blackwell
VanLange,P.A.M.,&Kuhlman,D.M.(1994).Socialvalueorientationsandimpressions ofapartner’shonestyandintelligence:Atestofthemightversusmoralityeffect. JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,67,126–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.67.1.126
vanKnippenberg,D.(2011).Embodyingwhoweare:Leadergroupprototypicalityand leadershipeffectiveness. LeadershipQuarterly,22,1078–1091. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.004
vanKnippenberg,D.,&Hogg,M.A.(2003).Asocialidentitymodelofleadership effectivenessinorganizations.InB.M.Staw&R.M.Kramer(Eds.). Researchin organizationalbehavior (Vol.25,pp.243–295).Amsterdam:Elsevier
vanKnippenberg,B.,&vanKnippenberg,D.(2005).Leaderself-sacrificeandleadership effectiveness:Themoderatingroleofleaderprototypicality. JournalofApplied Psychology,90,25–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25
Zaccaro,S.J.(2007).Trait-basedperspectivesofleadership. AmericanPsychologist,62, 6
Zaccaro,S.J.,Kemp,C.,&Bader,P.(2004).Leadertraitsandattributes.InJ.Antonakis, A.T.Cianciolo,&R.J.Sternberg(Eds.), Thenatureofleadership (pp.101–124). ThousandOaks,CA:Sage
Other documents randomly have different content
— Mutteihän sinulla ole edes akkaakaan.
— Kaipa tuon sellaisen saisi.
Insinööri Trampenfelt vaikeni. Vai niin, vai sillä tavalla.
— Juotko sinä? hän tiedusteli hetken kuluttua.
— Enpä nykyisin. Olen pannut viina- ja korttirahat säästöön.
Insinööri Trampenfelt paransi silmälasiensa asentoa ja vaikeni taas hetkiseksi.
— Enhän minä mikään kyselijä ole, jatkoi hän sitten, - mutta paljonko sinulla niitä säästörahoja oikein on?
— Saattaa olla kahdeksan-, yhdeksänsadan markan vaiheilla.
— Ja nekö ovat pankissa?
— Ei, vaan omissa hoteissani. Ja sitten…
— No, mitä sitten? Laula ulos vaan.
— Ja sitten muutaman toisen takana. Vihellys. Asia selveni hiukan insinööri Trampenfeltille.
— Mikset pidä pankissa?
— Ajattelin, että jos hyvinkin joutuvat hukkaan.
— Lorua! naurahti insinööri. - Sinulta itseltäsi ne saattavat joutua hukkaan, mutta pankissa ne kasvavat korkoa.
Saattoihan se niinkin olla, mutta mikä pankkiiri hän, Kankkus-Hilu, oli ja toisekseen hän ei ollut täysin selvillä tällaisista asioista. Saattoi hyvinkin olla, niinkuin insinööri sanoi. Mutta mihinkähän se näillä puheillaan oikein tähtäsi? Hilu paloi kuin odotuksesta ja toivosta, muttei uskaltanut kysellä.
— Ja nyt sinä kuljet täällä kuin sadun orja, kuuli hän taas insinööri
Trampenfeltin äänen, - ja kokoot mukamas rahaa omaa taloa varten. Se on kyllä periaatteessa kaunista, mutta se on pitkällistä ja pelkään, että ennenkuin saat tarpeelliset rahat kokoon, saat vaatimattoman ristin hautakummullesi.
Hilun sisässä jokin ikäänkuin loksahti. Vai tätä se olikin, pilkantekoa. Äreä sana oli tulossa, mutta hän peruutti sen. Saahan sitä suunnitella, ei se silti pilkkaa siedä.
— Kyllähän sinä olet työlläsi elävä ja varoistasi hyvin toimeentuleva, niinkuin asetus edellyttää, jatkoi insinööri
Trampenfelt, - mutta ei sitä jätkästä ole maanviljelijäksi. Ei, saamari, irvikuva se on. Mene nyt ensin maatöihin jonnekin. Mene vaikka Niemelään tai Sallansuuhun, niissä tehdään jotakin muutakin kuin kärrätään rahtia ja tapetaan poroja. Sitten hankit itsellesi mökin, pari lehmää ja akan. Lapsia voit hankkia, jos itse tahdot. Senjälkeen olet valmis uutistalokasehdokas. Hilu kuunteli kasvot hehkuen.
— Luuleeko insinööri tosiaankin, että…?
— Luulen. Käy juoneen vaan, mutta yritä oikein miehen tavalla, ettet jää roikkumaan niinkuin monet, jotka eivät sitten koskaan saa talojaan perintölunastetuiksi. Minä puhun kyllä heti, kun tullaan kirkolle, metsäherran kanssa siitä Liinahatun paikasta. Se on sitten riivatun hyvä paikka…
Nyt Kankkus-Hilu ei tiennyt, pitikö hänen itkeä vaiko nauraa.
Häneen meni innostuttava tunne, joka melkein lähenteli raivoa, hän olisi ollut valmis melkein vaikka mihin. Yhtäkkiä tuntui taas kaikki niin selvältä ja suoraviivaiselta, ettei muuta kuin käy käsiksi vaan.
— Viitsitkö vetää nuo saappaat koivistani, sanoi insinööri kuivasti, - reumatismi, vietävä, se taas… Sanoinhan minä ettei se eilinen yöpaikka ollut hyvä, siinä oli, pahuksessa, jotakin kosteutta alla. Kyllä sitä pitää aina hakea kangaspaikkoja, vaikka olisi kymmenen rakonuotiota…
Ilta oli jo myöhäinen ja miehet olivat jo aikoja sitten menneet yöpuulle.
— Kuulehan, kysyi insinööri, köntystäessään telttakatoksia kohden, — mikä se sinun morsiamesi oikein on?
— Se on vain sellainen… sen nimi on Iina Juovikas.
Insinööri, joka puolen miesikää oli viettänyt Lapissa, paljon oleskellut Hilun kotipaikallakin, ja siis hyvin tunsi asiakkaansa, rypisti hiukan kulmiansa.
— Juovikas, Juovikas, toisti hän itsekseen, -ei kai se ole Liisu tai Agneeta Juovikas?
— Ei, vastasi Hilu hämmästyen, - samoja sisaruksia se kyllä on, mutta ei… tuota… niin sanoakseni… ole sitä maata.
— No, hyvä on, ellei ole. Itsepähän parhaiten tunnet.
Mutta Hilun riemuun sekaantui nyt pieni pisara pelkoakin, pelkoa, jollaista hän ei ennen ollut tässä määrin tuntenut.
Eiväthän ne, Kankkus-Hilemoonin tapaiset eläjät, joilla on ränsistynyt mökkirähjä vuokralla jossakin Keinuvaaran kupeella, kaksi lehmänkantturaa ja vanha akka hoitamassa taloutta, eiväthän ne, sellaiset eläjät, lähde matkoille tärkeissäkään asioissa sillä tavoin kuin suuremmat eläjät. Annappas, että intikseen lähtevät: ensinnäkin kuluvat rahat, toiseksi menetetään pitkiä työpäiviä ja kolmanneksi saattaa sillä aikaa mikä paikka tahansa joutua rempalleen. Kauan, kovin kauan, oli Kankkus-Hilemoonikin tätä matkaa aikonut ja oinastellut, mutta vaikka kuinka oli sisua polttanut, niin ei passannut kolmattasataa markkaa heittää menemään kun ei hengenhätää ollut. Taivaan Jumalakin siitä olisi ollut pahoillaan. Mutta nyt sattui Mutkan Eerolle, jonka ammattina oli kuljettaa puulaakin kuormia edes ja takaisin, että hän sai poltteen sydänalaansa ja tarvitsisi etulaisen. Hilemooni tarjoutui lähtemään, viitonen päivältä, eikä siitä sen enempää.
Ei osannut syrjäinen arvata, mitkä tunteet Hilemoonin täyttivät, hänen lähtiessään tälle matkalle, jolla yhtä mittaa sai ajaa kolme päivää ja kolme yötä, ennenkuin oli perillä. Tuskin sitä täysin tajusi Hilemooni itsekään, tuntui melkein kuin olisi liikkunut unissaan.
— On sillä jotakin meininkiä, tuolla Kankkus-Hilemoonilla, sanoivat kyläläiset, — mökin vuokraa ja lehmiä laittaa. Sanovat sen yrittävän uutistaloa Liinahatun tienoille, ei sitten tiedä…
— Hulluja! vastasivat suurivaraiset. - Ei sitä kaikenlaisille anneta ja sitäpaitsi akaton mies. Muuten vain koettanee saada elämäänsä paremmalle kannalle kuin muut jätkät.
Mutteivät hekään voineet Hilemoonissa sanottavia vikoja keksiä. Ei kulkenut ryssän puolella viina-asioissa, ei pelannut korttia, ei kärsinyt pahaa elämää. Ihmisiksi oli elänyt koko sen ajan, minkä täällä oli ollutkin, työmiehen penskoja kuului olevan. Ei edes Kannanlahtiyhtiön ison lakon aikana ollut mihinkään muiden mukana erehtynyt, oli vain yksinkertaisesti siirtynyt Kurtin töihin. Niin, ettei sen puolesta… Mitä tuohon mökkiin tuli, jonka oli Sallansuun Santerilta vuokrannut, niin kaipa ei viihtynyt muitten pirtin loukossa. Mikäpä sitä esti, kun hiljainen ja työtätekeväinen mies oli lisäksi. Aina jotakin souvia keksi. Nyt se mökki oli sillä ollut vuoden verran, kaksisataa kuului olevan vuokraa niittyineen kaikkineen, ja hyvin se oli sitä korjannut ja laitellut.
Mutta, - ja tässä metsänmyyjät ja poronomistajat menivät tärkeän ja ymmärtäväisen näköisiksi, korottivat äänensä, sylkäisivät ja naurahtivatkin hiukan, - ei sitä vain joka pekasta talokkaaksi ole, ei edes uutistalokkaaksikaan, jos lie perää muuten koko jutussa. Tarvitaan siihen muutakin kuin hyvää tahtoa. Ei sitä jätkästä, se on jo koettu asia! Hyvä että talokkaat saavat, kovasti auttelemalla, uutistaloja asuvat omaisensa pysymään kintuillaan.
Jo karkaisi Saijan Aarieli luontonsa ja tiedusteli asiaa metsäherraparoonilta. Mutta parooni sattui olemaan synkällä tuulella, tuoksahti hiukan väkeville ja sanoi, ettei häntä saa vaivata sellaisilla
kysymyksillä. Metsäherran puustelli ei ole mikään tietotoimisto, se piti kerta kaikkiaan olla selvillä.
Saijan Aarieli laputti mitä kiireimmiten tiehensä. Ota siitä sitten selvä. * * * * *
Ja hiukan niinkuin unenäöltää tuntui Hilusta vaellus kirkolta kirkkokankaan taakse. Talvinen päivä alkaa hämärtää, joelta päin puhaltelee vieläkin jäätävä viima. Sörensenin saha on maalattu punaiseksi ja entisen, rautaisen savupiipun sijaan on rakennettu uusi, huimaavan korkea, tiilinen. Sahan ympärillä on asutus tihennyt, isännöitsijän talo on saanut kerroksen lisää, uusia valkeita taloja on ilmestynyt ympärille, nyt tuikkivat kaikista tulet. Jossakin kankaan takana huikkaa juna, siitä ei ollut tietoa lähtiessä…
Kankaan taakse vievää tietä on ehkä laitettu uuteen uskoon, se tuntuu leveämmältä kuin ennen ja puita on kaadettu tien molemmin puolin, mutta tien takana häämöttää mökkiläisasutus samanlaisena kuin ennenkin; muutamia, muita varakkaammilta näyttäviä tönöjä on ehkä tullut lisää, muuten on kaikki aivan samanlaista kuin ennenkin. Sinervon tönöstä kantautuu tielle hanurinsoittoa ja ikkunat ovat vetiset hiestä; niin, siellä juodaan kaljaa ja pannaa ehkä jotakin muutakin sekaan. Hanuri soi, yön päälle saattaa tulla pientä nahinaa. Aivan niin, se on niin tuttua sinervolaisille. Mistä lienevät itselleen keksineet sellaisen korean nimen!
Mutta — nyt ei Hilu tahdo uskoa silmiään — Kankkusen mökkiä on jatkettu. Hän pysähtyy katselemaan tätä merkillistä näkyä. Mökkiä on tosiaankin jatkettu. Katto on liitekohdasta kupera kuin kissan selkä ja kaksi pientä ikkunaa on tullut lisää. No niin, Hilu ei ehdi
muistamaan, että aika on kulunut ja nuorimmatkin tulleet työkykyisiksi. Mutta minuutin kuluttua hän sen muistaa ja hätkähtää, kun Kaisan-Sohvin mökki, muinoin punaiseksi sivuttu, tienpolvesta päästyä pilkistäiksen esiin Kankkus-Sakarin mökin takaa. Aika on tosiaankin kulunut ja on kulunut myöskin Iinan ja hänen kohdallaan.
Pitkän aikaa seisoo hän ja katselee molempia asumuksia ja jos olisi valoisa, saattaisi huomata, että hänen kasvonsa värähtävät oudosti. Lopuksi hän ikäänkuin tekee päätöksensä ja kävelee hiljaa ja epävarmasti Kaisan-Sohvin mökkiin sydämen ankarasti takoessa.
Lämmin ilma lyö tulijaa vasten kasvoja. Kirkkaasta valosta silmät hetkeksi huikaistuvat. Ompelukoneen ääressä, selin tulijaan, istuu nainen. Neljän tai viiden vuoden vanha lapsi leikkii lattialla.
— Iltaa.
— Iltaa.
Nainen ompelee palteen loppuun ennenkuin kääntyy.
— Herra… Eikö se ole Hilu?
— On.
Iinan kasvot eivät ole sanottavasti muuttuneet, varsi on ehkä käynyt entistä täyteläisemmäksi. Silmien alle on tullut tuskin huomattavia, hiuksen hienoja uurteita.
— Nytkö sinä sitten tulit?
— Nyt.
Iina kävelee kohti, hänen kasvonsa alkavat vertyä ja huulet vapisevat. Hilun valtaa omituinen, poissaolevan mielentila. Hän huumaantuu, mutta kuitenkin on hänessä joku aisti kylmästi ja huomiokykyisesti vireillä. Tällä hetkellä on hänen elämänsä eräässä ratkaisevimmista kohdistaan. Hän tuntee, kuinka Iinan kädet kiertyvät hänen kaulansa ympärille ja kuinka Iinan povi lämmittää hänen poveaan ja hetkeksi hän menettää koko tajuntansa ja, jos niin voi sanoa, uppoaa onnentunnelmaan, mutta pian alkaa taas virkeänä oleva aisti kylmästi toimia ja hän huomaa taas mitä tapahtuu. Saavutettu lämmin, kodikas tunnelma ei kuitenkaan häntä jätä.
— Sinä olet vanhentunut, sanoo Iina. - Ja olet kai pulskistunutkin.
— Niinkö arvelet?
— Niin minusta näyttää.
Hilu istuutuu puusohvalle ja Iina alkaa puuhata hellan luona.
Lattialla leikkinyt lapsi katselee vierasta setää suurin, pyörein silmin, seinäkello nakuttelee. Muuten on huoneessa odottava hiljaisuus.
— Minä tulin nyt sitten… niinkuin tiedät, pääsee viimein Hilulta.
Iinan kasvot jäykistyvät ja menevät valkeiksi. Pitkään aikaan hän ei vastaa mitään.
— Olihan siitä puhetta, tulee lopuksi katkonaisesti, — mutta… eiköhän se nyt ole myöhäistä…?
Veri pakkautuu Hilulla jäseniin, on kuin koko ruumis kauhusta jäykistyisi.
— Mitä sinä tarkoitat?
Iina purskahtaa itkuun ja lyhistyy tuolille. Lapsi lattialla käy levottomaksi, tuijottaa molempiin ja helähtää sekin itkuun. Se ei ole tällaisiin tilanteisiin tottunut. Hilulle käy olo oneaksi, hän ei osaa aluksi ajatella mitään. Tahtomattaan luo hän vihaisen katseen lapseen, ja tämän itku käy entistä äänekkäämmäksi.
— No, älähän nyt, Iina, äännähtää hän, - puhellaan…
Mutta hänen olonsa käy entistä tylymmäksi ja oudommaksi. Vaisto sanoo, mistä on kysymys ja ruumista alkaa jäädättää.
Iina koettaa hillitä itkuaan, mutta ajatukset ja tunteet ovat ylivoimaiset. Piinallinen hiljaisuus ja epävarmuus jatkuu. Hilu koettaa puhua uudelleen, muttei ole itsekään selvillä siitä, mitä sanoo. Se on vain jotakin, jotakin epäasiallista.
Viimein Iina rauhoittuu, pyyhkii silmiään ja puhaltelee pesään.
— Kyllä se on parasta, että menet, Hilu, sanoo hän. — Ei siitä kuitenkaan enää tule mitään.
Äkkiä Kankkus-Hilu tuntee itsensä odottamattoman tyyneksi ja rauhalliseksi. On, niinkuin se merkillinen pelko, jota hän ajoittain on tuntenut, nyt olisi toteutunut. Hän osoittaa Iinan luokse turvautunutta, pelkäävää lasta.
— Onko se tuo?
Iinan valtaa taas itkunpuuska ja hän likistää lasta hermostuneesti itseään vasten.
— On, vastaa hän.
Kuullessaan totuuden Iinan omasta suusta valtaa Hilun sittenkin raivo, silmät pullistuvat ja kädet puristuvat nyrkkiin.
— Saatana! sähisee hän. - Ja kuinka helvetissä se on mahdollista…
Hänen tekisi mieli hyökätä Iinan kimppuun, rusikoida hänet kappaleiksi ja nakata hänet talvipakkaseen. Hän nousee jo seisoalleen ja Iina kyyristyy lapsineen pesäkulmaukseen.
— Minä aavistin jo sellaista, perkeleen… Tässäkö nyt sitten ovat kaikki minun…
Iina ei puhu mitään ja Hilu seisoo kuin tiedoton keskellä lattiata, mutta sitten hän peräytyy, menee ensiksi ovelle, vaan palaa sitten takaisin ja näyttää kuin miettisi hän jotakin.
Niin, se on nyt vain muuan Kankkus-Hilu elämänsä ratkaisevimmassa käänteessä. Hänen ajatuksensa juoksu ei ole niitä syvällisimpiä, ongelmallisimpia, hermostuneimpia eikä monimutkaisimpia. Hän muistelee vain entisiä aikoja ja varsinkin muuatta kohtalokasta kesäiltaa, jolloin muun muassa eräs tuntematon puominvahti sattui surunvoittoiselle tuulelle ja lauloi muutaman surunvoittoisen laulun. Sitten hän muistelee niitä vuosia, jotka ovat siitä lähtien kuluneet ja tapauksia, jotka niiden varrella ovat sattuneet, niiden joukossa olemista eräässä sairaalassa. Edelleen hän ajattelee, että yhtä hyvin tuo lapsi voisi olla muuatta vuotta vanhempi eikä sitä luonnollisesti olisi kukaan muu vaalinut kuin Iina eikä tietysti kukaan muu kantanut siitä häpeääkään. Ja vielä hän mielessään otaksuu, että onpa se Iina mahtanut tuota samaista lasta vihatakin, mutta eipä ole tehnyt sille mitään. Kun hän sitten näin melkein tiedottomasti on käynyt käräjää itsensä kanssa, tapahtuu niin, että myrsky hänen mielessään ensin tyyntyy, sitten se
kokonaan lakkaa ja lopuksi sen sijaan astuu rajaton, melkein itkettävä hellyys ja sääli. Hän menee Iinan luo ja laskee vavisten kätensä hänen olkapäilleen.
— Älähän nyt… Iina… tuota, hokee hän neuvottoman ja lapsellisen näköisenä, — ei tuo… tosiaankaan… kannata. Itse olen paljon huonompi…
Ja kun toisen nyyhkytykset yltyvät, yltyy hänkin, vaikka tarmokkaasti pinnistelee vastaan, samantapaiseen ja eräässä välissä hän kysyy:
— Et suinkaan sinä… tuota… rakastanut häntä?
Sana rakastaa tuntuu hänestä liian juhlalliselta, on melkein vaikea sanoa sitä.
Iina voittaa vähitellen mielenmalttinsa ja istuutuu Hilun viereen sohvalle.
— Ei se sellaista ollut, vastaa hän ja sana sanalta hänen mielensä keventyy. — Se oli rakennusaikana… muuan rautatien mestareita… Tiedäthän kyllä, millaista täällä oli…
Itku valtaa Iinan taas.
— Kerro vaan, kyllä minä kestän, sanoo Hilu, vaikka ruumis vavahtelee.
— Tulen muutamana iltana kotiin… juovat täällä. Äiti ja se mestari ja sisaret ja Väinö-veljesi. En tiedä, kuinka tulin minäkin, vaikka olin aina pysynyt erilläni… Taisivat ikävätkin painaa. Sekosin kai ja sitten… En tiedä itse mitään, vannon sen vaikka…
— Ei sinun vannoa tarvitse.
— Se sattui sitten sillä tavalla. Ei ole senjälkeen tässä mökissä elämää pidetty. Kuollut on äitikin ja sisaret maailmalla. Mutta kun sattui, eihän siitä minnekään päässyt…
— Eipä kylläkään, myönsi Hilu alistuvaisesti. Hetken kuluttua hän kysyi:
— Voisitko sinä nyt sitten keskiviikkona lähteä mukaan? Se on nyt sillä mallilla…
— Miksenkäs, kun sinä kerran… Ja taas Iina pillahti itkuun.
— Eipähän tässä enää mitään itkemisiä näistä asioista, sanoi Kankkus-Hilu. — Tulee uudet murheet.
* * * * *
Vuosien kuluessa ovat Kankkusen Hiltan kasvot saaneet ryppyjä ja silmiin saattaa joskus asettua haljakka ilme, mutta Kankkus-Sakari on melkein piristynyt, sillä elämän helle ei enää kuumota niin polttavana hänen kohdallaan. Joskus hän ottaa ryypynkin ja jää päiväksi tai pariksi pois työstä. Aletaan jo tulla vanhoiksi, vaikkei olla iällä pilattuja. On niistä lapsistakin hyötyä, ei ole enää täysin saamattomia muita kuin tuo Eeva.
— Väinö on maailmalla, meni kerran tukkijoelle ja sille reissulle jäi. Mutta tulee kyllä, tulee kyllä niinkuin sinäkin. Viinanmyynnistä olivat kerran sakottaneet, sahalaiset olivat lehdestä lukeneet, ja minä ajattelin, että katsoppas poikaa. Kaipa tuo sentään oli moninkertaisesti sakkonsa voittanut.
