Deviance Credit: Tolerance of Deviant Ingroup Leaders is Mediated by Their Accrual of Prototypicality and Conferral of Their Right to Be Supported

Abstract

Leaders often deviate from group norms or social conventions, sometimes innovating and sometimes engaging in serious transgressions or illegality. We propose that group members are prone to be more permissive toward both forms of deviance in the case of ingroup leaders compared to other ingroup members or outgroup members and leaders. This granting of “deviance credit” is hypothesized to be underpinned by perceptions of an ingroup leader's prototypicality of the group (“accrual”) and belief that occupancy of the role confers a right to be supported (“conferral”). Analyses of data from four studies demonstrate that both accrual and conferral (1) mediate evaluations, inclusion and punishment of deviant leaders, and (2) they make independent contributions to deviance credit. Implications for leadership, marginalization, corruption, innovation, and transformation are discussed.

Uncertainty and Influence: The Advantages (and Disadvantages) of Being Atypical

“…Often prototypical leaders hold an advantage both in attaining leadership and changing and defining group norms (Reicher & Hopkins, ). The prototypical leader advantage extends to people allowing their prototypical leaders to both commit transgressions and change group norms (Abrams et al., ). Yet, we also present caveats to the prototypical leader advantage.…”

“…Abrams, Randsley de Moura, and Travaglino () found that sports team members evaluate ingroup team captains (leaders) who break the rules more favorably than others who commit the same transgressions. Group members trust prototypical leaders to act in their best interest and, as a result, view a leader who transgresses as doing so in service of the group (see also Abrams, Travaglino, Randsley de Moura, Pinto, & Levine, ). Shapiro, Boss, Salas, Tangirala, and Von Glinow () found that employees judged transgressing leaders less harshly to the extent that they found their leaders capable and inspirational, lending support to the idea that group members provide leaders leeway to transgress, even if the morality of the action would be scrutinized had others perpetrated it.…”

Ethics Versus Success? The Acceptance of Unethical Leadership in the 2016 US Presidential Elections

“…Brauer and Chekroun, 2005;Chekroun, 2008), but communicating disapproval directly to the leader may not be feasible, particularly if the group is very large. Previous research has established that ingroup leaders are often given latitude to deviate from group norms (Abrams et al, 2018). Ingroup leaders who commit unethical actions are less likely to be derogated or punished than other ingroup members or outgroup leaders and members who commit the same transgressive actions; a phenomenon labeled 'transgression credit' (Abrams et al, 2013;Randsley de Moura and Abrams, 2013).…”

Benefiting from Diversity: How Groups’ Coordinating Mechanisms Affect Leadership Opportunities for Marginalized Individuals

“…Demonstrations of “being one of us” and “understanding how things are done around here” earn an individual the ability to deviate while maintaining credibility in the eyes of other group members. Evidence suggests that higher status group members are often afforded more latitude for deviance (Abrams et al., ; Abrams, Travaglino, Marques, Pinto, & Levine, ). We further hypothesize—and this is the crux of the current argument—that normativity and prototypicality are not entirely defined by opinions or behavior (what a person thinks or does; i.e., variety diversity), but also what they look like and their social category memberships (i.e., disparity diversity).…”